I wish to move in line 1 reading as follows “Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Assembly of the Union of South Africa…—

This will then read “Be it enacted by His Most Excellent Majesty, the King of South Africa, the Senate and the House of Assembly of the Union of South Africa”. I wish to move this amendment because I feel that this would be entirely in accordance with what our own Status Acts and the Statute of Westminster lay down.

Order. The hon. member is moving an amendment to something which is not in clause 1.

It is in line 1—are we not dealing with that?

No, we are dealing with clause 1 now.

When shall we have the opportunity of discussing this?

It cannot be changed.

May I ask whether the Committee has had something submitted to it, which it is not allowed to deal with.

We are dealing with clause 1 now, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member is to the words of the Enactment.

May I ask, if these three lines cannot be dealt with now, when they will be dealt with? This question cannot be considered on the long or the short title, and surely we cannot put into a Bill something which we are not allowed to discuss?

Order, order! Under our Rules and practice the Chairman cannot put the words of the Enactment.

May we have the ruling of the Speaker on the question, when we can deal with these three lines?

The hon. member cannot discuss it.

But surely it is impossible for us to have something placed before us which we cannot discuss. I should like to ask that we obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on your ruling that we cannot discuss these three lines. I move—

Upon which the Committee divided.

Ayes—51:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Plessis. P. J.

DU Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and J. H. Viljoen.

Noes—61:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name as follows—

I wish to move the following amendments—

I hope the Prime Minister will accept these amendments. The first amendment is to delete the words “or deemed to have been made”. It appears to me that these words are superfluous, unless the Prime Minister can explain why they have been put in. He provides that the Defence Force is to serve under this Bill and under the regulations, and then we have the words “or deemed to have been made”. I cannot understand why the Minister of Defence has inserted that provision.

I myself have already moved the deletion of those words.

I am glad to hear it. Then I come to the amendment in which I move the insertion of the words “but does not include any British or other foreign forces which may be performing military services in South Africa.” This Bill is evidently intended for the Union Defence Forces. We know that no British troops or Australian troops can be stationed in South Africa henceforth, and we do not want this provision to apply to them. I now want to move my other amendments containing certain definitions. We notice that in clause 3 (4) there is a provision to this effect, that regulations may be issued in regard to compulsory military service, and I now wish it to be laid down that there shall be no compulsory military service to the north of the Zambesi River. This is of the greatest importance, because there is a great difference of opinion between the other side of the House and this side of the House on the question where there can be compulsory military service. We have had the statement from the Minister of Defence, and also the statement from the Minister of Native Affairs that our Defence Force can be employed for the purpose of defending our boundaries, but that those boundaries may be on the other side of the Zambesi. For that reason we want to define specifically what is intended by compulsory military service, and to what extent it can be applied to people in South Africa. Our Defence Force is intended for the defence of the Union. These regulations give extensive powers to the Minister, and that being so it is of the greatest importance that we should define here what compulsory military service is. The public outside must know what the Minister of Defence has in mind in regard to compulsory military service. Are we to take it from his speeches that we are to all intents and purposes to be responsible for the protection of the British territories in Africa, and are we to accept the statement made by the Minister of Native Affairs that we are even to be responsible for the protection of Portuguese territory?

I never said that.

That is what the papers stated.

It must have been in Die Burger.

No, it was in the Minister’s own papers, such as the Johannesburg Star, but as the Minister of Native Affairs says that he did not say it, I shall be pleased if he can tell us what he actually did say overseas in regard to this matter. Then the world outside, and this House too, will know where we stand in regard to this question. The Prime Minister said that our Defence Force in South Africa would not go beyond our borders, but at the same time he pointed out that the Defence Act had deliberately left the matter rather vague; this therefore means that he may interpret the law in such a way that our people may be compelled to go anywhere in North Africa. That is why we would like to have this matter cleared up. I move further amendments in the definition of terms such as “confiscation of property” and “enemy.” I think the hon. the Minister of Defence will accept these definitions, or does he by any chance wish to declare war against other nations? I know that Russia is often mentioned, but at the moment we have only one enemy, namely, Germany. If he has other nations in his mind, we shall be pleased if he will tell us so. So far as we know we have only one enemy, namely, Germany. Then I also move that “internal disorder” shall be interpreted to mean “all disturbances, riots and troubles whatsoever, unless caused by the Government itself.” The Prime Minister should accept this definition at once, because I assume he is not anxious to cause any disorders himself. We recollect that years ago, it was the actions of the Prime Minister which caused a strike resulting in bloodshed in Johannesburg. That being so, this is a matter of the greatest importance, as we are now at war, and may expect disorders, because we have a Government which has a reputation for causing disorders in the country; we should be clear on this matter. I remember the Prime Minister saying that he expected possible disorders in time of war. [Time limit.]

I am unable to put the proposed definition of “other war”. In proposing to alter the majority system of voting prescribed by section 50 of the South Africa Act and to preclude the native representatives from voting it constituted a new and important principle not contemplated by the House at the Second Reading of the Bill.

I should like to move an amendment—

The clause now reads—

My amendment is simply a matter of subediting. I only want to say “sea force” because after each word “air” “land” and “sea” there is a stroke. As regards the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) (Mr. Haywood) I take it that all the amendments moved by him are now before the Committee, so I should like to say a few words about the hon. member’s amendment which reads—

I think the whole Committee will realise that it is of great importance while we are discussing this question of War Measures, that we should have clarity on the question of the boundaries of South Africa. This is a matter which can no longer be left in the air.

Ask Pirow?

I should like to tell the Minister that if he wishes to have any lead from this side of the House and also from the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), he will get it. It will not be such an ambiguous lead, but it will be a very clear ruling, which will not safeguard British Imperialism. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, while we are on this subject that his Press has been trying to create the impressien that a judgment was given by our High Court in connection with the question where South Africa’s borders are, and his Press has given a distorted representation of the position. When the War Measures Bill was before the House on the first occasion, the Press tried to create the impressien that the Union’s border was at the Equator — as the Prime Minister also tried to do — and they quoted the case of Moyle vs. the General Insurance Company. I should be pleased if the Minister of Native Affairs would deal with this question. I shall tell the House what actually took place in court. What was the issue? In the last World War, or rather after the war, a case was heard in court of a certain Moyle whose son had been shot in Tanganyika. The attitude adopted by the insurance company was that the policy could not be paid out as there was a provision in it that it would not be paid out unless the holder of the said policy died in South Africa. This young fellow was killed in Tanganyika and the company refused to pay out the insurance. His father thereupon went to court to get an order from the court instructing the insurance company to nay out. Now what happened? The jury decided that the insurance company had to pay out, even though the young fellow had been killed in Tanganyika. That was how the Press represented the case. I am sorry to state however, that that was only half the truth, and consequently a jaundiced representation of the whole case was given, because it went further; it went to the Appeal Court of South Africa, and no person less than the Chief Justice. Sir James Rose-Innes, dealt with the matter. By a majority the court decided that the insurance company did not have to pay as Tanganyika was not situate in South Africa. I should like the hon. minister opposite, who is so keen on interrupting, to get up and challenge the verdict of the former Chief Justice of South Africa. The Chief Justice expressly stated that one could not hold that South Africa went beyond the Zambesi. In other words, the finding of the Appeal Court was that South Africa did not go beyond Southern Rhodesia. Let the right hon. the Prime Minister say whether what I am stating here is right or not; let him tell us that the Appellate Division of South Africa gave a wrong verdict. We are not going to allow ourselves to be misled any longer by the Cabinet’s British Imperialism which even wants to overrule the Appeal Court’s finding. The Appellate Division has laid it down that South Africa does not go beyond the Zambesi, and we on this side of the House are prepared to acquiesce in the finding of the Appeal Court. That is the reason why this amendment has been proposed, and that is the policy which we insist upon. We adhere to the definition laid down by the Appellate Division, and the position is not as represented by the Minister of Defence, that it is competent for him to commandeer our men to go and fight in Tanganyika and Kenya, right up to the Equator. The hon. the Minister of Native Affairs exclaimed just now: “Go and ask Pirow.” That attitude towards a former colleague, who sat with him in the same Cabinet, is not worthy of the honourable Minister.

Nonsense.

Well, the Minister of Native Affairs will not get away with that nonchalant attitude here in South Africa. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister knows just as well as I do, and he knows even better than I do, because he sat in the same Cabinet with the hon. member for Gezina, that the hon. member for Gezina said over and over again that if trouble should arise in the Northern parts between white and black, South Africa would take part. The irresponsible attitude adopted by the Minister of Native Affairs will not cut ice with anyone in South Africa to-day. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister in his speech at Bloemfontein, which was published in pamphlet form, also referred to the remarks made by the hon. member for Gezina at the Imperial Press Conference in Cape Town, but I want to ask him how it is that he only quoted half a question — why did he not read the whole of the statement made by the hon. member for Gezina? Was it fair and just for him to do so? I kept the report of that speech made by the hon. member for Gezina which appeared in the English papers, and he very clearly stated: “If there should be a conflict between white and black.” He definitely stated that. Is it politically honest to leave that out? Members of the Government clash with the commonsense of every individual who says that there is such a thing as South Africa. Central Africa and North Africa, and their conceptions of South Africa conflict with the finding of the Appellate Division. Those light-hearted and ill-considered interjections do not cut any ice. If hon. members on the other side say, and if the Government pursue the policy that we must go and fight in all British territories, in Central and North Africa, let them say so outright — let them show their colours.

For the sake of South Africa.

The hon. member is the very last man who should say anything on this subject. He is the man who cannot without blushing mix with Afrikaners on a political platform. I hope the Government will accept this definition of “South Africa” that it includes all territory to the south of the Zambesi for the sake of its own self-respect.

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) to alter the word “forces” into “force.” I have greater faith in the Afrikaans of the draughtsman of this Bill. The draughtsman of this Bill is quite competent to draft the text, not only in English but in Afrikaans as well, and to my mind he is perfectly correct in speaking here of “forces” and not of “force.”

It is only an alteration in language. In that case he should delete the dash at the end of the words.

In regard to the amendments of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) I am unable to accept any of them. The hon. member has proposed a number of amendments, and he commenced with an amendment on the definition of the word “defence force.” He wants to add, “but it will not include any British or other Foreign Forces which may be performing military services in South Africa.” It is quite unnecessary to insert this negative provision. The definition in the Act provides what is meant by “Defence Force.” and that provision is quite adequate as it says quite clearly what is the definition of “Defence Force,” and it is superfluous to add what is not included. I think the provision of the Bill is quite adequate. The hon. member goes on to propose a number of other amendments, the most important of which all refer to clause 2. I stated on a previous occasion that I was going to move the deletion of clause 2, and I have in fact given notice of such amendment. Many of the most important amendments proposed by the hon. member apply to clause 2. He is therefore moving amendments in respect of provisions which, after the deletion of clause 2, will not be in the Bill at all. These provisions, which be wishes to amend, will all be up in the air, and for that reason I cannot accept them. Take for instance his amendment to “bodies.” This term is only used in clause 2 of the Bill. The hon. member now wishes to give a definition of the word “bodies,” but as soon as clause 2 is deleted it will be quite unnecessary. Irrespective, therefore, of the merits of the hon. member’s proposal, I consider it unnecessary to propose a definition of a word which is not used in the Bill at all. He moves that “bodies” shall mean municipalities and health committees authorised by an absolute majority of their members to define the duties and also to accept the provisions of that sub-section. I doubt whether the hon. member is really serious with his definition. To me it would appear as if he had an ulterior motive in moving this amendment. But whatever his intention may be, it is quite unnecessary, as clause 2 is dropped. The same remarks apply to the next definition proposed by him, namely “compulsory military service”. That term is used nowhere in the Bill except in clause 2, and if clause 2 drops, it is unnecessary. His definition is—

This is going beyond the Defence Act, and as I explained on a previous occasion in this House, I do not think I would be doing right if I were to define, to restrict, and to lay down what has been left vague and indefinite in the Defence Act itself.

It is not vague and indefinite.

The Defence Act says that compulsory military service may be applied for the defence of the Union inside or outside South Africa.

No, inside or outside the Union.

Yes, military service can be applied for the defence of the Union inside or outside the Union, but inside South Africa.

And then the court gave an interpretation of that.

No, the court did not give an interpretation of this particular question. It is unnecessary to quarrel about this, and I do not think there is any need for us to have an argument about it. I explained on a previous occasion that, so far as the Government’s policy was concerned, no compulsory military service would be applied in conflict with the provisions of the Defence Act. I shall stick to the Defence Act. I went further, and I said that it was the Government’s policy, if it should appear necessary in the interest of South Africa or otherwise, for the defence of the Union or otherwise, for Union troops to be sent to the far North, volunteers would be used and there would be no compulsory military service. We have laid it down that we can only have compulsory military service inside South Africa — whatever the term may mean. I agree that we cannot extend the term “South Africa” beyond the Equator, and I said that so far as the defence of our interests was concerned up to the Equator or in Kenya, the Government was not prepared to apply compulsory military service. There is, therefore, no necessity for a misconception or difference of opinion as to what will happen. I stand by the Defence Act primarily as passed in 1912, and if we should go further North we shall adopt the procedure we followed on a previous occasion, and the work will be done by volunteers. It is, therefore, not necessary to bring this question into the discussion on this Bill. The definition is also unnecessary, because an effort is again being made to give a definition of a word which, if clause 2 drops, will no longer be in the Bill. The hon. member proceeds to give a definition of the word “enemy”. He says “enemy” means “Germany”. But there we have the same position. The word “enemy” is only used in clause 2, so if clause 2 drops, the necessity, if it ever existed, of giving a definition of that word disappears, Then the hon. member gives a definition of “internal disorder”. Now, I feel that that definition is objectionable and offensive to any Government of this country. The hon. member says here—

It is insinuated here that the Government itself will be the cause of disorders, and in such event the Defence Force cannot be made use of.

But that is a matter of history.

I am not prepared to accept such an amendment. The other amendment you, Mr. Chairman, have ruled out of order, as being in conflict with our Constitution. The hon. member also wants to define the word “penalties” to mean a fine not exceeding £5 or seven days’ imprisonment with or without hard labour. I cannot accept that either. Then he has a further definition of “prosecution of the war”. That again I believe to be a term which appears only in clause 2, and this definition will fall away with clause 2. He has this further definition—

I think it would be a mistake to accept such a definition. I do not know whether hon. members realise that if we made the Zambesi the Northern line of South Africa we would be including a considerable portion of Angola. In making a definition which does not concern South Africa only, but which also concerns territories of friendly states, we have to be very careful. I am not prepared to accept this. This does not in any way affect the question of policy as to where we are going to pursue the war with volunteers; it would appear to me that we would be going beyond the Defence Act, and if we were to lay down a definition of this kind to describe “South Africa”, we would be going too far, and we would be making a mistake. In those circumstances I am unable to accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the definition clause in any Bill is important, but in this Bill it is of particular importance. We are now setting out to define such terms as “Defence Force”, “the Union” and “South Africa”; and when you consider the remarkable position that we occupy in this war, we have to be particularly careful. In the first place, before the Committee can give its attention to this matter, we should know exactly what our position is. One reads in the United Party Press of an undertaking not to send troops overseas. Now, I myself would like some assurance on that point from the rt. hon. the Minister of Defence. We have an ambiguous resolution of Parliament reading as follows. This is the clause dealing with the sending of troops overseas which forms part of the resolution of the 4th September—

What does that mean? Now what does “Should not send forces overseas mean”? I have no doubt that most hon. members on that side of the House were induced to vote for this motion by this proviso and that they took it to mean that the Government would not send forces overseas.

We knew exactly what it meant.

I ask the Minister of Defence to reassure us on that point—let him tell us that that is really the case. But when we have the right hon. gentleman’s assurance, the next question is how much weight can we attach to it?

Why do you ask for it then?

The hon. member must withdraw that remark. He had no right to make it.

I shall withdraw it, but at the same time I want to tell you why I say it.

The hon. member must not try to circumvent my ruling in that way. He must withdraw it, and I must ask other hon. members not to indulge in personalities.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that this is a matter of the utmost importance. We want to know whether if that assurance is given it will continue to hold good—will the right hon. gentleman tell us for how long it will continue?

Why do you ask if you are not prepared to accept it?

Let me give an instance of what happened a few days ago. On the second reading of this Bill this is what transpired. The Minister of Defence was speaking and the Leader of the Opposition interjected, and this is what he said—

The Leader of the Opposition was speaking here—

This was a question which the Leader of the Opposition was putting to the Minister of Defence—

And then the Minister of Defence replied “Yes”. And then the Leader of the Opposition went on—

And what has happened? Three of these clauses which the Minister of Defence assured us would not only remain, but would remain unamended—are to be amended now. What does the Order Paper tell us? The Order Paper sets forth amendments of moment—not unimportant amendments, but material amendments to clauses 3 and 6. Am I right then to ask what weight we can attach to the word of the rt. hon. gentleman?

Then you will not get any assurance from me.

There is no consolation in that.

Well, you tell us you do not want any assurance.

Then what the Minister of Defence stated on the 4th September is meaningless.

I will not take any questions from you after that.

In spite of what the rt. hon. gentleman says, the House is entitled to some kind of assurance.

But you have just told us that you do not want any assurance.

We have now the assurance given us in the Press of that party, and surely it is not asking too much to say that we want the Minister of Defence to endorse what they have said—we want his endorsement for what it is worth.

But you will not accept it from me.

Does the rt. hon. gentleman blame me in view of what I said just now?

Well, you will not get it.

There is far too much vagueness about this. This is a matter of vital national importance, and we want to know exactly where we stand.

The rt. hon. the Minister of Defence stated that he could not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) because it would include the territory of a friendly country. For that reason I wish to propose the following amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). I move as an amendment to the definition of “South Africa” proposed by Mr. Haywood—

The hon. minister of Defence has told us that the borders of South Africa were left vague aparently for strategic purposes, but personally I should like to know what the borders of South Africa really are. The Prime Minister said, and we accept his assurance, that if our forces should proceed north of our borders only volunteers would be used. He ties himself down by that statement, and I believe that he will keep his word, but let us assume that a large contingent from one of the European countries should come from the north, and it should be evident to us that that contingent intends to attack us. Is the Minister in such an eventuality going to rely upon volunteers to go and stop that contingent? I feel that the position adopted here by the Minister of Defence is definitely dangerous.

Are you people not going to join as volunteers?

I shall do so, but others may perhaps not. I regard this as a most important matter, and I speak with deep conviction when I say that we, the people of South Africa, should know what our obligations are, and where the borders lie which we may be called upon to defend. We have a sacred duty to defend our country, and we as citizens of the country must defend our borders. It is for that reason that we ask where our borders are. We are entitled to know it, and I hope the Minister of Defence will seriously consider the question of making it clear to the country what our duties are going to be in future.

After the statement made by the Prime Minister that we cannot define exactly where the borders of the Union are…

No, not the borders of the Union.

And the question of South Africa. After that statement by the Minister I want to read to the House what the Government’s mouthpiece “Die Suiderstem” has said about this. The Minister of Defence clearly stated that we could not take the southern shores of the Zambesi as South Africa’s border, but I want hon. members to listen to what “Die Suiderstem” says. The headlines of this particular article are as follows: “Afrikaners on European Battlefields.” “The Cannon Fodder Lie”; “No Union Citizens Compelled to Fight Outside South Africa,” and then the paper writes as follows [translation]—

And then the paper goes on—

And I want hon. members to note this—

It is Die Suiderstem which says this, and now I should like to know whom we are to believe. Are we to believe the statement which we got from the Minister of Defence, or are we to believe that statement from the Government’s mouthpiece. The paper goes on to say this—

This statement was made last year and after having regarded this as an auhoritative declaration we hear from the Minister of Defence that the southern shores of the Zambesi are not regarded as South Africa’s borders. Are we to take it that Die Suiderstem has deliberately distorted the position, and if this is a distorted representation, how many people may not have been misled by this misrepresentation? I myself accepted that statement of Die Suiderstem.

What is wrong with it?

But it is exactly the opposite to what the Minister of Defence said here. He stated here that we could not look upon South Africa as having as its border the southern shores of the Zambesi, but now we have Die Suiderstem telling us something different— Die Suiderstem tells us that anyone saying anything else is telling a lie. I would like the Minister of Lands to read this article carefully so that he may understand the fact that these two statements are in direct conflict with each other.

I do not want to enter into an argument with the hon. member on the question of what Die Suiderstem or any other paper has said. It is naturally important to us and to the country to know what the legal position is. The question of compulsory military service for which people may be commandeered is settled in the Defence Act, and the Defence Act says that people may be compelled to do military service for the defence of the Union, and this may be done inside or outside the Union, but in South Africa. It is perfectly clear that there is a certain amount of vagueness in connection with the word “South Africa,” but there are certain areas which cannot be described as falling in South Africa. Take for instance military service for the defence of South Africa overseas, and in Europe. One cannot by any stretch of the word “South Africa” say that people can be compelled to take up the defence of South Africa in Europe. The definition is “South Africa,” and one has to remain within the confines of South Africa. Therefore, when the question is asked whether the Government can compel people to render military service, for instance in Europe or overseas, this, in terms of the Defence Act, can simply not be done.

To what extent can people be compelled?

There are certain things which cannot be denied, but now I come to the question of the extent to which people can be compelled, and there I say — and I feel that the whole Committee and the country as well will agree with me — that this is indefinite and vague, and must depend on circumstances.

What an answer.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) also shares the responsibility so far as the future of South Africa is concerned, and I hope he will listen. Things may happen, an attack may come from outside which may be so overwhelming that one may have to go pretty far to the North, beyond our borders, North of the Limpopo, North of the Orange River. North of the Quninge if one wishes effectively to protect the interests of South Africa.

Under compulsory service?

I contend that there must be a certain degree of elasticity in regard to such eventualities. I can conceive that perils may eventuate, there may be a menace to South Africa under conditions when the public will not be prepared to wait until the danger has reached a certain point, and face it then. In such eventualities the borders of South Africa must be fairly elastic. I am not going to tie myself down, and I do not want this House to tie South Africa down, because if we were to do so, we might later on impose restrictions on the future of South Africa. This matter was left open in 1912 when the law dealing with compulsory military service was passed, and we must leave it open now. I am not going to say where we should draw the line of South Africa in the hour of danger, when the future of South Africa may be at stake. Hon. members know what the position is. It is no longer a matter of distances, but of methods of fighting and of attack, and the enemy may be a thousand miles beyond our borders and yet be able to make an attack within one day. Why should the term “South Africa” be so drastically defined, why should we tie down future generations which may have to cope with such eventualities?

In such an eventuality you can pass regulations.

The hon. member is talking in an irresponsible fashion. The hon. member has never yet done anything for the defence of South Africa, and possibly he never will do anything. I keep incidents in mind which may occur in days to come, dangers which may arise. I naturally appreciate the difficulty which we have to-day and the misconception among the public, and for that reason in order to prevent difficulties and division among the people, and quarrels and misconceptions and suspicion mongering, I thought fit to give the assurance, as Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of my Party, that in this case (I am not binding future generations) in this war, if we have to go North as far as the British Colonies in the North to assist in the defence of those countries in the hour of danger, we shall do so with volunteers.

And if there are not sufficient volunteers?

Leave others to judge of that.

What about the costs?

What is the position of the permanent force?

The same. What I have said refers to the permanent force, the Air Force, the Active Citizen Force, the Commando organisations. We are dealing here with most important matters, and in view of the difficulties existing to-day and in view of the misconceptions prevailing among the people I can give the assurance that we are not going to commandeer anyone, we are not going to compel anyone to go and fight in the far North. Those who may eventually go will go voluntarily. But I am unable to say what may happen to-morrow or the day after, if South Africa should be really threatened, and the Government of the day should say that we cannot wait until Parliament meets and until a law is passed to send troops. Our very existence may be at stake, and we shall, have to go to the North. In 1912 the door was left open and we are still leaving it open. I am only closing it in one place, and that is that so far as present circumstances are concerned we are not commandeering anyone to go and fight in the North in countries such as Kenya, for instance.

Is the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, or on behalf of his Party?

The hon. member over there asked a question as to who would have to pay. The steps taken by this Government will be taken by the Government as the Government of our country, and if we send a force, even if it is a force of volunteers, we shall bear the expense ourselves. We shall take up the attitude before the world, a country realising its dignity and duty and not as a country which only boasts — but we shall act as a country realising its responsibilities. If we send organised troops, we shall pay for them ourselves, whether they be volunteers or men who have been commandeered. I do not believe that if we accept the position as I have put it before the House, there can be any misconception. There is a certain amount of elasticity in connection with the word “South Africa” but that will have to remain because we cannot predict where the line is going to be drawn in the hour of danger. I do not know whether it can remain at the Zambesi, or whether it will go beyond that. I cannot say that in the hour of real danger we shall be able to say that we are not going to do anything to the North of the Zambesi. I feel that we should leave that opening in the law as it is to-day, but I want hon. members to accept my assurance — and I have said so on the platteland and I say it here — that if it should become necessary in existing circumstances to defend the country, and to defend the interests of the country, — we also feel a certain amount of responsibility so far as the defence of British Colonies in the North are concerned — it will be done in the North by means of volunteers.

It would appear to me that the Prime Minister is asking us to mix up two conceptions. The Prime Minister says that the expression “South Africa” is elastic and should remain elastic because we do not know what dangers may menace the Union. But there are two different points in that clause of the Defence Act which are of importance. The Government may commandeer for the defence of the Union—that is one point; the other is “within South Africa.” I can conceive that there may be a difference of opinion on the question where the danger to the Union lies, and where the Union should defend, but it is just because that portion is elastic and because there may be a difference of opinion on that point—it is because of that that it is so essential that every man should know exactly how far he can be commandeered, and not beyond that particular line. Because the fact that there is elasticity here constitutes all the more reason why the other point should be made clear. The Government of the day may say “We consider South Africa is being attacked at this or that spot” and in such an eventuality the Government may consider it necessary to commandeer, and a man will then have to go because the Defence Act compels him to go. It is because of the uncertainty of that conception that he should know “I am obliged to go as far as the border, but if it should be beyond the border I can refuse.” It would be purposeless to allocate a geographical name to a certain spot, and then to say that the name is elastic. I must say that what the Prime Minister has told us here has made it all the more essential for us to define the term so that every individual may know exactly how far he may be commandeered—how far he may be compelled to go.

First of all I wish to refer to the remarks made by the Prime Minister in regard to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). I do not know why the Prime Minister felt it incumbent upon himself to make those remarks. They were uncalled for and very unreasonable. The Prime Minister said that the hon. member for Mossel Bay had never yet done anything to defend the country. The hon. member for Mossel Bay would be able to say other things against the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister might not like. If I had been in the hon. member’s place I would have replied that I had not yet had the opportunity to defend South Africa, but that if I were given the opportunity I would not chase my own people in khaki uniforms over the plains of South Africa.

A great many of you hid under the Union Jack.

I do not wrap myself up in the Union Jack like the hon. member over there is doing. I should be pleased if the right hon. the Prime Minister could give us something more definite, and I should be pleased if he would tell us exactly what the position is in connection with compulsory military service. He told us that it would depend on circumstances whether Union citizens would be compelled to render military service, even beyond the borders of South Africa. The country will be grateful that the Prime Minister, at least on this point, has taken the country into his confidence; that he has told them that he takes up the attitude that so far as compulsory military service is concerned he does not tie himself to any borders. He told us that he could conceive of a state of affairs under which people could be commandeered for military service even beyond the borders of South Africa. In any event, we have a little more clarity now on this point, although one feels hurt that the Prime Minister, a South African, should hold that view. That being so, I can conceive of quite a number of other things happening. The Prime Minister has told us that the borders are vague. If the borders are so vague, why then did the Prime Minister cause a letter to be written by Lt.-Col. H. T. Pretorius of the Hay Commando to a certain person at Griqua Town in which the following words occurred—

That letter was written on the instructions of the Prime Minister.

How does that accord with the statement that the term “South Africa” must remain vague, while the Prime Minister in that instruction to a member of the Defence Force states that he is obliged to render service up to the Equator? The Prime Minister tells his commandos that for military purposes under the Defence Act the border of South Africa is the Equator. Surely after an official notification of that kind the Minister of Defence need not hesitate—surely he can tell us that that is the position? I cannot imagine his adopting a different attitude in writing to his commandos than he would adopt in the House, because that sort of thing would only lead to confusion. We must accept the assurance which the Prime Minister has now given us here, but he should have this official notification withdrawn, and he should tell members of the forces that they can also be compelled to go and fight to the north of the Equator. The Prime Minister should withdraw that statement— people will then know where they stand. Do not let the Prime Minister indulge in an egg dance—it does not look to well, least of all for a Prime Minister. I now wish to mention another matter, a matter in regard to volunteers. At the beginning of the war it was stated that people need not be alarmed at our entering the war because only volunteers would be used. Did that also apply to our 150 South African sailors who with H.M.S. on their caps are walking about London, because their officers are evidently ashamed of the fact that they come from South Africa? I asked how many of those 150 had been obliged to go and how many went voluntarily, and the reply was that they all went voluntarily. But we cannot accept that, we know better.

They joined on that condition.

Yes, the Prime Minister also knows better. These young fellows were partly trained on the General Botha, naturally in the traditions of the British Navy, and when they were asked whether they wanted to go as volunteers — does anyone want to tell me that a single one of them could have replied that he could not go? I shall quote more instances on the Budget debate to show that economic compulsion was brought to bear on these volunteers. When the Prime Minister tells us that these people went voluntarily, his statement is not in accordance with facts, and when we have more details we shall realise fully that the Prime Minister’s statement is not in accordance with facts. The Prime Minister stated here that nobody refused; of course, they could not refuse — if they had refused, they would have been on the streets. I want to ask the Minister when speaking of volunteers who go forward to fight, to lay less stress on the word “volunteers”. Let us assume for a moment that the war should break out in Abyssinia — because that is what the Prime Minister had in mind all the time in the drafting of his regulations. He is not going to admit it, but we know that he always has an Abyssinian war in his mind.

Which Abyssinian war is the hon. member referring to? I have never heard of it.

Yes, you may not have heard of it, but the country is not as stupid as all that. One can read between the lines of every regulation issued by the Prime Minister in the last six months, and one can notice that that is the object in view. But assuming the Defence Force, or the whole of the Air Force should refuse to go, or assuming that only five per cent. should be prepared to go, and the other ninety-five per cent. should refuse. What sort of a condition are we going to have in this country then? A state of affairs would arise under which young South Africans would be compelled to go and fight to the North of the Equator. That would be the position. The sooner we realise that the Prime Minister is expecting trouble in North Africa, the better, and if that trouble arises he will see to it that he has a hand in it, and if he is unable to get sufficient volunteers for that object, he will use compulsion. The sooner that is realised, the better. [Time limit.]

There is no satisfying the Opposition in these matters. When this point that we are now discussing was last before the House, the rt. hon. the Prime Minister, in the plainest possible language, gave the House the assurance that if any Union troops were despatched to what we know as East Africa, they would be volunteers. His predecessor, the present hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) thereupon interrupted, saying: “Why didn’t you tell us that earlier, you would have saved a lot of trouble and misunderstanding.” I don’t profess to quote his exact words, but that was the effect of what he said. Now, sir, three weeks later, we have the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) standing up, not taking the line that the hon. member for Gezina took, that he would be perfectly satisfied if South Africa’s participation in the defence of East or Central Africa were limited to volunteers, but now endeavouring to make out a case that illegitimate pressure will be brought to bear upon all classes of the community to compel them to volunteer. Well, sir, that is another “gogga”. I did not rise to deal with the hon. member for Moorreesburg, but to deal with the extraordinary series of amendments that we have received this afternoon from the hon. members for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) and Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), which amendments apparently have received the blessing of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan). I am rising now for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that so far we have had no light thrown on this debate by the ex-Minister of Defence, the present hon. member for Gezina. Now what are these amendments? As I understand them the amendments of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District), as proposed to be further amended by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, are these. South Africa must be defined as any territory south of the Zambesi, not including Angola, and not including Portuguese East Africa. Then, up jumps my hon. and learned friend, the member for Stellenbosch, and says that the people of this country are entitled, by means of a legal definition, to know exactly how far they may be led and at what geographical point they may rebel and say, “The law does not entitle us to be taken any further.” Let me, therefore, assume that these amendments are accepted as expressing the position as a whole, and South Africa is defined, as desired by the Opposition, as what we know as the political Union of South Africa, plus South-West Africa. No South African troops commandeered in time of danger may then be marched beyond the Portuguese border at Komatipoort. As soon as they reach that border they may say, “Not one yard further will we go.” Let us assume that the Union is attacked, not by Germany or Italy, or any other European power, but attacked from the east — a danger that has ever been present to the mind of the hon. member for Gezina, if one is to judge by his speeches in the past. Then, sir, we are to allow Lourenco Marques to be attacked and occupied by an Asiatic power, and we are to do nothing; we cannot move a single soldier to its defence, but we are to wait for the enemy at Komatipoort. That is what the hon. member for Stellenbosch would have us do. Legislating to-day in this year 1940, we are urged to tie the hands of our Minister of Defence, and tie the hands of our Defence Department, so that in the future from whatever direction the threat may come — from the east, the north or any other direction — not a single Union soldier may be marched, except with his consent, over the border into Portuguese territory. I am glad I have the attention of the hon. member for Gezina, because I want to remind him that this is a problem to which he has himself, on many occasions given attention. Addressing the Transportation Conference some three or four years ago, he was careful to point out that South Africa’s interests were not bound up with British Africa alone. It is true that he has shown himself conscious, on some occasions, of the interests of British Africa, but on other occasions he has pointed out, and quite rightly, that the interests of South Africa do not stop with the British flag, and that we are just as deeply committed to the defence of Portuguese East Africa as we are to the defence of Southern Rhodesia, and yet he sits quiet in this House this afternoon, while his colleagues behind him, the hon. members for Bloemfontein (District) and Mossel Bay, are moving their foolish amendments, endeavouring to tie in advance, the hands of our defence forces. Let him get up now and give us his views on these amendments, and let him attempt, if he can, to square those amendments as a policy with what he has advocated in the past. Does he approve or not? For years he occupied the responsible position of Minister of Defence in this country, for years he was entrusted with the preparation of the defence of this country against all possible enemies, and for years he has been warning South Africa that the enemy might come from any direction. Does he then this afternoon associate himself with the amendments of these two hon. gentlemen, or does he not? I would remind him that three months before the present war broke out, he was concerned to prepare, or to assist in the preparation of a booklet against the very hon. gentlemen who are now moving and supporting these amendments, and in his own handwriting he gave the heads of this booklet, so far as this very question we are now discussing is concerned, to a prominent journalist in Cape Town. The very first point that he wrote about, professing to express the position of the Malanites, according to him, was this—

The hon. member for Gezina’s reply was “What of Lourenco Marques?” I ask him that question this afternoon, “What of Lourenco Marques?” Does he approve of the amendments of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, limiting the operations of our defence force, the obligations of our common defence of South Africa to the borders of the Union; does he think as an ex-Minister of Defence, that we can possibly defend ourselves by waiting inside our borders till the enemy has got there, and is about to attack us? Does he think that if an Eastern power, which I have in mind and which I will not name, got as far as Komati Poort with Johannesburg only 200 miles away, does he think Johannesburg could be successfully defended? What does he think about these things? We shall be very glad to have his candid opinion on some of the amendments which have been moved, and some of the speeches made in support of them.

I have no intention of following the red herring which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has attempted to drag across this particular trail. He knows perfectly well that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) put up this particular amendment, because the rt. hon. the Minister of Defence told us, “How can I accept the line of the Zambezi; it may include Angola, and we have no business, in a debate of this nature, to mention the territory of a neighbouring friendly country?” Now, to oblige the hon. the Minister of Defence, to make it possible for him to reply to a question—and we shall insist on this reply—to make it possible for him to reply adequately and to remove his difficulties, the hon. member for Mossel Bay got up and said, “We will meet you, we will exclude Angola and exclude Portuguese East. Our attitude is that they should be included, but since the rt. hon. gentleman has difficulty in connection with this defence of South Africa, we will meet him.” Now the hon. member for Kensington thinks that we are going to follow this red herring. Nothing of the kind. We are going to insist on having, from the rt. hon. the Minister of Defence, his definition of what South Africa includes. It is ridiculous, to use no stronger expression than that, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) has pointed out, to suggest that there can be any vagueness as regards the geographical definition. There may be a difference of opinion, and it may be left purposely vague as to when South Africa is in danger. I can quite understand, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch pointed out, that in certain circumstances the defence of South Africa may be outside, far outside the borders of South Africa.

And what did you do in the meantime?

In the meantime we need not worry about what is a couple of thousand miles away. If the rt. hon. gentleman wants to commandeer people, then he must not rely on the Defence Act. But we are being trifled with to-day. On the one hand we are told that we will keep strictly within the Defence Act, and when we point out what the limitations of the Defence Act are, we hear laughter from that side, and we are told “How can you amend the Defence Act?” No, let the rt. hon. gentleman be candid. “I shall disregard the Defence Act.” That is his attitude.

That is your attitude.

We are not prepared to accept the statement of the rt. hon. gentleman where he says, “I shall keep strictly within the Defence Act; people need not be alarmed.” And at the same time he refers to dangers thousands of miles outside of South Africa. He cannot have it both ways.

I think you want to have it both ways.

Why we are insisting on a reply from him is this. The rt. hon. gentleman was not vague when he had those letters sent to the various commandants. The wording of these letters was—

That is for the purpose of commandeering—

The Equator includes Mombasa—Mombasa is well to the South of the Equator. It includes portion of Italian Somaliland. They are South of the Equator.

No, that is wrong.

Portion of Somaliland is South of the Equator and I think I am right in saying that it is Italian Somaliland. It may be British Somaliland—at any rate portion is South of the Equator. Two-thirds of the Belgian Congo is South of the Equator, and portion of Central Africa is. So the Minister of Defence had his military people advised—they were advised on his instructions to this effect: “You can be commandeered to fight up to the Equator.” It is no use trying to be vague on that point. It is no use trying to smooth over the position, and saying that we are going to leave it vague as it was intended to be vague. He is the man who caused all this unrest in South Africa by his letters.

You caused more unrest by your speeches.

I am not taking any notice of that interruption. These commandants have been told officially that they can be commandeered to go and fight as far as the Equator, and now is the time for the rt. hon. gentleman to confirm or withdraw that instruction. He has told them that they may be forced to go as far as the Equator. If the right hon. member wants to abandon that attitude, let him do so, but he must not come here and say that we must leave this vague. He is the man who himself terminated that vagueness. We are not prepared to accept the assurance of the Government, that people are not going to be commandeered and moved as far as the Equator unless he withdraws those instructions, and tells us that these instructions were issued by someone who is not all there in defining the boundaries of South Africa, as the Equator, or by someone who intended to perpetrate the biggest fraud in the history of South Africa.

We now learn the value of certain of the Opposition amendments. We now learn from the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that the purpose of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and indeed the purpose of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), if I rightly understood him, was not to have these amendments passed, but to oblige the Prime Minister, to help him in his very difficult task of piloting this Bill through the Committee. We learnt, of course, what we knew before, that the hon. member for Gezina does not support these amendments, in fact he thinks that they are trifling amendments which are used as pawns in the debating game, and not to be adopted or accepted by this House. I felt that all the time—I have far too much respect for the hon. member’s intelligence for one moment to think that he seriously would support these amendments. But I shall be interested to know whether the hon. member will, in order to save his face, walk out of this House when they are being voted upon. He knows as well as I do that these amendments could not be allowed to appear in any Defence Act or in any amendment of the Defence Act of the Union.

Why not?

I am not Minister of Defence, and I do not know what letters, or what instructions were written to commandants. But I put this to the hon. member: He agreed with me that you cannot limit the definition of South Africa to exclude Portuguese East Africa.

Certainly you can.

He did not say so in so many words, and he gave assent to that by his silence, and I know very well from his speeches in the past that he agrees that you cannot exclude Portuguese East Africa from the defence definition of South Africa. And I take it he also agrees that you cannot exclude the greater portion of Angola. How then does he exclude the southern portion of the Belgian Congo, and include the northern portion of Mozambique. How does he include southern Angola and exclude northern Angola? It shows that the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister is perfectly correct in leaving this phrase vague and undefined. Now let me come back to the policy of the hon. member for Gezina himself. I am glad the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) is back, because he quoted from that speech which the hon. member for Gezina made at the Imperial Press Conference some years ago. He quoted that as showing that South Africa would fight in Central and East Africa only if it was a case of white versus black. I am not going to raise that issue for the moment. That was so fully explored, and the hollowness of that contention was so fully shown up that I need not now refer to it. But let me ask the hon. member for Marico and the hon. member for Gezina—was anything said in that speech about volunteers?

Read it.

I have read it.

If you have read it you must have been incapable of understanding it.

Was anything said in that speech about volunteers? No. The hon. gentleman said that we recognised certain responsibilities in East Africa in certain contingencies, and no distinction was made between volunteers and other subjects of the Union.

That is a complete misrepresentation. Read it.

Unfortunately I have not got that speech before me, but I have read it in the past.

You seem to have misread it.

Now I am going to read something else. I am going to read a speech which the hon. member made at Nairobi early in 1938, a speech which was first introduced to us in this House by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). The hon. member for Waterberg read that speech of the hon. member’s in a debate in this House in September, 1938, right at the height of the first crisis over Czechoslovakia, at the time of the Munich Conference, and that speech was read in the following circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition — then the hon. member Piquetberg (Dr. Malan)—moved an amendment to the Part Appropriation Bill to the effect that Parliament should grant supplies to the Government unless they gave the following assurances—I shall read it—

that is the present Prime Minister—

The second assurance asked for was—

In speaking to that motion the hon. member for Waterberg quoted the following speech made by the hon. member for Gezina at Nairobi. This is the quotation—

In other words, there was to be a common defence policy.

Where did he say that?

Now I understand a common defence policy to be that each would act in the defence of the other. There were the three groups—South Africa, Nyasaland and the two Rhodesias, and the East African group. These groups should follow a common defence—that is they should defend each other.

Who said that?

You said it.

Nonsense.

If it is nonsense then I invite the hon. member to tell us what he meant when he said it. I have read what he did say. We have not had a denial from him. We have had also these letters (from Lord Francis Scott and Major Cavendish-Bentinck).

I have said before that I repudiated the contents of these letters. I have already said that.

The hon. member is so often away from this House addressing public meetings that I venture to say that he has not attempted to give any explanation of these letters. If I can draw him out this afternoon to do so, we shall all be very gratified.

I do not always take notice of you.

No, but the hon. member will take notice of public opinion. He will also have to take notice of these letters which Lord Francis Scott has quoted….

You may be a candidate for everything, but you are not a Minister yet.

I seem to have annoyed the hon. member somewhat.

Oh, no, no, you have only bored me a little.

I just want to get from him what he meant when he told the people of Nairobi that this country, in common with East Africa, should follow a common defence policy. He was told by the hon. member for Waterberg also that he should tell the House what that speech meant. In that debate, after a long tirade against the hon. member for Piquetberg where he was much ruder to him than he is to me this afternoon, he wound up by dealing with that portion of the speech by the hon. member for Waterberg, and do you know what he said?

Tell us where you get it from?

I have Hansard here, page 3593. This is what he said—

But even then the Minister was prepared to admit that there was this co-ordination of troops, and the question of the common equipment of our forces in pursuance apparently of a common defence policy was in his mind. Now he is busy with his former opponents, upon whom he used to pour such bitter scorn, trying to whittle down the obligations of South Africa in regard to its own defence, and I put this question again, “Did he in any speech of his where he referred to our obligations beyond our borders and said what we would do if South Africa was attacked, did he in the private conversations he held and the speeches he made ever draw any distinction between volunteers and the ordinary forces of South Africa? If he did I should like to hear of it.

In regard to the question of the borders of South Africa, we in this House to-day are in a maze. We are unable to get any definite reply as to what are South Africa’s borders; we have here the one man who is able to give us an answer, the man who is in charge of these matters — he is here to give us a clear answer, and to tell us what the position is. I am referring to the Prime Minister, who at the same time is also Minister of Defence. People in the country have asked us from time to time what their obligations are so far as the defence of the Union is concerned. They ask: “How far am I obliged to go if I should be commandeered?” Where are the borders? One would imagine that the border of South Africa is the northern frontier of the Union, but some people seem to stretch this to the Zambesi, and others again as far as Central Africa. But what did we get from the Minister of Defence himself? He stated very clearly that nobody would be commandeered or would be compelled to go and fight overseas. There was no qualification attached to that statement, and it was very clearly put. But when we came to the question of the borders of South Africa the Minister of Defence, when he got up for the first time, said that we could not commandeer people to go and fight in the northern parts of Africa, but that only volunteers would go there. When he got up for the second time, however, after the question had been put to him, he said that this was a matter which we could not determine to-day. He told us that we might have to go a long way afield to meet the enemy, because, he said, with modem armaments and modes of transport one could cover a thousand miles and more in one day, and that being so it was dangerous to say definitely where the line must be drawn. We are asking, however, where the border is, and how far our people are to be compelled to go? The people of the platteland want to know what their obligations are under the Defence Act, but the man who is able to give us an answer to that question is not prepared to do so. He leaves the Act as vague as it is to-day so that we may be called up at any time to go even to the north of the borders of Africa. This afternoon we had two statements which are not in accord with each other. Everything is kept vague. Where and when are we to get a statement? When are we going to get it if not under these regulations and on this Proclamation? Even though we do not like proclamations, we are still anxious to have this sort of thing laid down by legislation. Let it be laid down by regulation so that the people may know, and the men of military age may know to what extent we are responsible and to what extent we are liable for the defence of South Africa, against whomsoever it may be. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), spoke about the “stupid amendments” proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), and by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). He drew attention to Portuguese territory. Well, what is the position going to be if the enemy should be in Portuguese territory — should enter Portuguese territory and march up to our borders? We would be able to deal with that position. Let us lay down what our borders are, how far our volunteers may be sent, and to what extent people are liable to be commandeered. The right hon. the Prime Minister takes up the attitude that volunteers will not be sent overseas. He says that nobody will be compelled to go overseas, and he even told us here that if people have to be sent across the borders volunteers will be used; but even then we should still know where our borders are. If that is explained we shall have security in the country, and not this feeling of uneasiness and difficulty which prevails to-day. Not one member of this Parliament is able to go and tell his constituents the extent of their obligations and how far they may have to be sent, whether they may be sent to the Zambesi or to Central Africa. Nobody is able to do so. It would appear to me that the statements made by the right hon. the Prime Minister are in conflict with each other. We heard that he had informed his commandants that the equator was the border, but now he apparently does not wish to adhere to that decision. If one statement, one explanation, was ever necessary, it is a statement by the Prime Minister as to where the borders of South Africa are. Then people would know in advance what the position is in regard to men of military age, and the fifty or sixty thousand volunteers, whom the Prime Minister spoke about the other day, would also know the extent of their obligations, if fighting should take place beyond the borders of the Union.

I feel deeply grieved that the Minister of Defence is not prepared to take us into his confidence. We must be convinced that he is convinced in his own mind where he considers the Union’s borders are. If he would only take this House into his confidence, this side of the House would definitely co-operate with him. This question where the Union’s borders are, has to be solved, and it is because this is not done that so much guessing is indulged in. We have to guess, and the country has to guess where our borders are, and this naturally gives rise to suspicion. We cannot get away from that. We do not know what is in the mind of the right hon. the Minister of Defence, and we do not know what his intentions are — we can only guess. Has he got Abyssinia in his mind, or does he want to go even further north; are our sons to go voluntarily to fight on the battlefields far north, in Egypt, or even in Palestine or Turkey? The Prime Minister cannot blame this side of the House for being suspicious. He definitely knows what he is going to do. Why does he not take the country into his confidence and tell us where the borders are? If he did so we would co-operate. If he were to tell us openly and straightforwardly where the borders are with a view to the strategical position of the Union, and if he were to tell us for instance that our border is the Zambesi, he could add the qualification that if Portuguese territory, for instance, should be invaded, we would be obliged to go and fight there, as this would constitute a menace to the Union. And we would be able to understand this. On the western side, furthermore, the northern boundary of South-West Africa could then be defined as the Union frontier. I should then feel at liberty to say that I was in agreement with the Prime Minister, because I do feel that it is our duty to defend our country at all costs. We would then be able to pursue one definite policy. Let us lay it down where our borders are, then we can defend those borders, and I can assure the right hon. the Prime Minister of our support and hearty co-operation. I have always taken up the attitude that we may differ politically, and that an Opposition is a most valuable thing, but I have always said that in regard to matters concerning the defence of the country we should not differ. This is a national question—a matter concerning the people. It is a matter of life and death which affects all of us. We have only one South Africa and nothing more. This side of the House will use its efforts and shed its last drop of blood for the defence of our country, but we want to know clearly where the borders of our country are.

Hear, hear!

I shall be grateful if the Minister who has just said “hear, hear,” will bring pressure to bear on his Leader to make a statement as to where the borders are which we have to protect and defend. I am not a believer in voluntary service. When the country is in danger everyone has to assist in its defence, and the idea of volunteers may be fatal to our country. It is impossible for us to defend South Africa by means of volunteers only, but if danger should threaten, everyone would be needed for the defence of the country. But we do become suspicious if young fellows are deprived of their livelihood, are compelled to join up, and are then called “volunteers.” I do feel that that policy is unsound. It is intimidation to a degree. We have to take up one attitude, and that is that every citizen must contribute to the defence of our country. Our volunteers are being trained and are taught the value of discipline; they are put under oath and they have to obey. Where are they going to be sent then? Are they going to be sent to the battlefields of Europe? I know that the Minister of Defence is not in a position to answer this question, because it would create an uproar throughout the country if he were to state openly where he eventually wants to send our young men. At the moment our country is not being threatened. Where is the enemy? The enemy is 7,000 miles from here. No attack has been made on this country barring the attack, perhaps, which was made a few days ago in Adderley Street. I refer to the attack by a German girl on that monstrosity in Adderley Street. I must say that it is a stigma on the honour and dignity of South Africa to have such a monstrosity in our streets. We shall require the daring and the courage of young South Africa if the day should dawn when an enemy will dare to attack us; but if we send the cream of South Africa out of the country to be maimed and crippled on the battlefields overseas, we shall be left here with a force which will lack the daring and courage of youth, if perhaps in two or three or four years’ time a conflict should occur here. We must concentrate our forces here and we must prepare ourselves for the future. We know what the world is to-day, but we do not know what it is going to be in two or three years’ time. I feel that the right, hon. the Minister, who has had such great experience in military matters, will agree that this is the right time for us to concentrate our forces and to prepare ourselves for difficulties of the future. Difficulties will arise in South Africa and we should be ready.

I am gratified that there is at least one hon. member on the other side of the House who has left no doubt in our minds that if our country should be attack he will defend South Africa. There was a difference here this afternoon on the question as to where South Africa is, and where South Africa is not. I have never felt more in agreement with the Prime Minister than when he gave an explanation of South Africa’s position in regard to defence. If hon. members will have a little patience I should like to show them this map, if you will allow me to do so.

Does it go up to Egypt?

I wish the hon. member would not try to be funny. Under the proposal of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), the borders of South Africa would skirt the river, and the whole of Northern Rhodesia would be excluded, but Southern Rhodesia would be included. When we get to the west, the hon. member does not lay down where he wants our frontiers to be, because the Zambesi runs along here, when coming from the north. If we should accept the proposal of the hon. member for Mossel Bay this is how the Union’s borders would run—they would go up here and down there, and I am quite convinced that the hon. member has never even taken the trouble to study the map. If we should take this globe which I have here, and if we should take South Africa south of the Equator, we would see at once the ambiguity of the position—and when the Prime Minister is criticised on account of his statement, we must come to the conclusion that he did not say too much when he spoke of the southern part of Africa as being south of the Equator. We can follow the Equator on this globe, and we see that Somaliland is just beyond it. Hon. members now want potential enemies to be allowed to invade the whole of this country. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) always stated that we should face our enemies in the forests, but now hon. members want us to leave the bushveld, the whole of this part of South Africa, to the enemy. And they want us to take a stand here when nearly all the trees have been cut down. I want to point out that this is a mountainous country, and a forest country, and there is ample water here. Hon. members now want to allow the enemy to invade that country and to settle there, and take up a position which they may hold for years. The enemy will then be able to starve South Africa and we shall have to lie on the borders, but we will not be allowed to go any further; we shall have to lie alongside the river and wait there. The enemy would not even have to fight us—they could live there and simply starve South Africa. If we were to accept the position of having cur troops here, the whole of the western part would experience the greatest difficulties in regard to the troops which would be stationed there—our troops would be camped in these areas in the west while the enemy would be settling down in areas where they could make themselves comfortable for years and years. We would have to leave that other country to the enemy, while we would be waiting for them in the desert. And that is what hon. members over there say would be in the interest of South Africa; that is why I am trying to indicate how ineffective the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mossel Bay is, yet the hon. member for Mossel Bay has the support of the hon. member for Gezina. If one studies the map and sees the area and the country where, according to the hon. member for Gezina, our northern boundary will run, we must realise that he also had a very wide view so far as South Africa was concerned. I want to revert to the point I made when I said that I had never been more in agreement with the Prime Minister than I was this afternoon when he made his statement here. If hon. members look at this map they will see that one cannot allow the Equator to remain one’s border, because the largest river takes a big turn there, and it would be a great mistake to leave that in the possession of the enemy. One would have to leave a great deal of elasticity according to conditions, because the enemy is not going to ask you “What does your law say, how far are you allowed to go, and how far are you not allowed to go?” If hon. members were to concern themselves a little less with the question of political gain, if they were to leave out the question and the consideration of making political capital, we should have fewer amendments of this kind proposed in this House. We are here to try and protect our country and not to try and catch votes. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) discussed this clause in a fairly moderate manner, but I do not know whether the hon. member listened when the Prime Minister replied. Does he want the position made even clearer than the Prime Minister made it?

It was not at all clear.

If you want it still clearer then I do not know what you want. I hope hon. members opposite will stop squabbling now, because it has been clearly stated that if we have to go across our borders into neighbouring states, the work will be done by means of volunteers. What happened in 1899? The republican forces had the same idea, namely, not to sit still but to go and attack the enemy before the enemy could get at them. The old veterans will remember that they were most successful when they were outside the republics, but when they were fighting in their own territory most of the republican forces became demoralised, although they fought like lions when they were beyond their own territory. If we should have a position laid down, as proposed by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, we should get to the Victoria Falls. How far is it from the Victoria Falls to Johannesburg—it is no distance for an aeroplane to come to Johannesburg from there, to bombard that town? Do hon. members want to make it as easy as possible for a potential enemy to come and shoot us here? Why do you want to hinder the Prime Minister in his efforts to keep the enemy as far away from our country as possible? We are no longer living in the days of the ox wagon; one can get from Mombasa to the Union in an hour, and an hour later one can be back at Mombasa to enjoy one’s dinner there. Hon. members now wish to draw a line and lay down an hour’s distance from the Union’s borders, but if they do that they must not come and tell us that they want to defend South Africa. If they want to draw a strategic line from which the enemy with his aeroplanes can reach us within an hour, they must not come and boast of their patriotism.

I have never in this House listened to a more ridiculous speech than that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) where he tried to lecture us like a lot of school children. It reminded me of a film showing an educated baboon playing the part of the teacher to a number of others. The hon. member showed us, as he said, that the Prime Minister had clearly explained to us what he intended going, but the Prime Minister also made it clear to us that he is not concerned with what is described in the Defence Act as South Africa. He told us that he did not care where South Africa’s borders were, because he had given an undertaking that no member of the Defence Force, no young fellows, would be commandeered to go beyond the borders of South Africa. As soon as he went beyond South Africa’s borders he would do so with volunteers. For that reason he said that at this stage it was unnecessary to define what the term “South Africa” meant. In another part of his speech he said that it was necessary to leave the term “South Africa” vague, and the only reason he gave for that was that it might be necessary to stretch that term in order to define the interpretation of “South Africa” according to circumstances. I have now stated clearly what the Prime Minister’s contentions are, and I now desire, as a lawyer, to put this question to him: whether he is of opinion that the term “South Africa” which is clear may be subject to a wider interpretation? I want to ask the Minister whether it may have an elastic interpretation. I have always understood that certain definitions are laid down by the law, and if a word should not be clear, it is defined in accordance with those rules, and not according to circumstances. But that is not the question which bothers me when I read this Bill. I am reading clause 2, which even the Prime Minister was afraid of when he had to introduce it during the second reading. Now it has become quite clear to me—no matter whether the term “South Africa” be defined as being to the south of some point or other, or wherever it may be defined—if the Prime Minister considers it necessary to send troops to any part of the world, he can do so. He wants to take powers under clause 2 which I take it I am allowed to discuss, because there is a reference to clause 2 in clause 1.

Naturally, it is still in the Bill.

Yes, and clause 1 refers to it. It is laid down in clause 2 (3)—

A Government which can even make a request of this kind, and which can have a clause of this nature printed in a Bill, is not going to allow itself to be stopped by the provisions of a law in time of war and in time of emergency. If they can do that, it will suspend the provisions of any law, and we are therefore not satisfied with the position as it is to-day. The Minister of Defence admits that the term “South Africa” is vague, and he mentioned an example. He is now no longer going to the Equator, hut he is going to the South Pole, and he tells us that aeroplanes go south over the sea. It was necessary to do so, and that being so, he let them go there. In other words, South Africa may mean anything the Leader of the Government wishes it to mean. For that reason it is essential that the people should be warned, and that they should know what is contained in clause 2; they should know what the Government proposes taking unto itself, namely, greater powers than those possessed by Hitler or Mussolini. And the Government simply means to take those powers without consulting anyone: and they will then have the power to suspend any Act —any Act passed before or after this date. They will be able by a stroke of the pen to wipe out all those Acts, and they will be able to out their own regulations in the place of those Acts. The Minister of Defence himself became scared of this clause; but what is the use in the circumstances of our having a definition of the meaning of “South Africa”—however necessary for us it may be to have clarity—what is the use of our having such a definition when we are dealing with a Government such as we have here? When one has a Government such as we have, no Jaw or no regulation is of any use, because the Government wants to appropriate unto itself the right to do whatever it likes to do. And it is going even further than that. They want to make regulations under clause 1 and then they want to act in connection with those regulations exactly as they please. And even their own regulations are interpreted by them as they want them to be interpreted. In other words, there is no such thing as regulations or laws. The Government has the right to interpret things as they Diease and to act as they please, no matter how illegal the position may be. And although it has already been announced that clause 2 is to be withdrawn, it is none the less essential that that clause shall be clearly described, so that the responsible section of the population may know what the powers are which the Government wants to take unto itself under this Bill.

I start from the assumption this afternoon that rightly or wrongly South Africa is at war. And the Minister of Defence went so far as to say that he would conduct the war beyond the borders of the Union of South Africa with volunteers, and he also said that the volunteers who had already joined would be given the opportunity of saying —and the permanent force and the commandos would also be given the right to say —whether they wanted to take part in the war in the north. He stated, in short, that every part of the army would have the right to say whether it wanted to participate in the war in the north. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not dangerous to recruit volunteers without mentioning where they may possibly have to go and fight. A person may join voluntarily to go and fight in Central Africa, because he may be convinced that if he goes to fight there he is doing so for the protection of the Union of South Africa. But he may possibly refuse to go and fight in Asia Minor, and it is actually in Asia Minor where the forces are being concentrated to-day, and what is there to prevent the Minister of Defence from taking the volunteers of the Union and sending them to Asia Minor to fight there alongside of the French troops, the Indians and the English troops? Do you not think it would be equitable to tell the citizens of the Union, who want to join voluntarily, that they must take it that the northern boundary of South Africa is at this or that point? It may become necessary later on, from a military point of view, to proceed further, and in that event such a step may possibly be justified, if the Prime Minister can definitely state that it is in our interest. But at this stage, when there is no enemy in the whole of Africa, to say now that he is going to take volunteers to fight in the north without laying down what our boundaries are, is going very far. I should like the Prime Minister to make the position quite clear and to say that the volunteers shall go so far and no further. He further told us that he would give the burgher commandos their full rights, irrespective of the instructions sent to certain commandants. I should like to hear definitely from the Prime Minister whether he intends recalling those instructions which were issued to the commandants.

What struck me in the statements made by the Prime Minister was that they were so terribly vague. First of all he would not define the borders of South Africa. He said in his statement that whenever South Africa’s interests or otherwise should demand it, be would go beyond the borders of South Africa. What is the meaning of “or otherwise”? All we are concerned with here are the interests of South Africa, and not the interests of anyone else. After I had listened to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), and after having looked at the map he shewed us, I asked myself who our potential enemies might be. On our northern boundaries we have Portuguese territory; are they our potential enemies? Then we have the Belgian Congo. Are they our potential enemies? Then we have the British Protectorates and higher up is Abyssinia. It would appear to me that the Government is even at this stage trying to make provision in the event of Italy entering the war, so that we shall be able to send volunteers to help defend Kenya. Is that one of the Minister’s plans?

I wish to bring to the notice of this Committee that the Government is busy obtaining recruits throughout the length and breadth of the country, but we find that even in Natal they are not getting many recruits. The Minister’s department is very seriously concerned about the lack of enthusiasm on the part of young men to join up, and they are going to get even fewer volunteers now, not merely because members of Parliament are to get additional compensation and are to retain certain privileges, but because those young fellows are not being told where their services are eventually going to be employed. The time has come when we should be definitely told what is the object of this vagueness on the part of the Minister of Defence. He should tell us what other interests there are except South Africa’s interests, and he should definitely tell us where our volunteers will eventually have to go and fight.

I should just like to add a few words to what I said a little while ago, and I want to say that it will come as a shock to the country that the Minister of Defence is not prepared to give a definition of South Africa’s borders, and that he should have said, in addition, that conditions may arise when volunteers will be sent to the north of the Zambesi and also to the north of the Equator. That is what he said, and he stated this on his own responsibility. I do not really know whether we should attach much importance to these statements made by him with the object of reassuring people, that is to say, that he would not commandeer people to go and fight in the north. If that statement is of the same character as the statement made by him in September of last year, when he proposed his resolution in this House, then I am afraid that we cannot attach much importance to it. I want to ask him to give me his attention for one moment, so that I may know from him whether I am putting the matter correctly. In September last year he made a proposal here that South Africa should enter the war but subject to this one condition, that the Government should not, as it did in the last war, send troops overseas. By that addition to the motion he obtained a considerable number of votes from members who are now on his side of the House. Under the rules of the House I am not permitted to say that he misled the House; I only say that he obtained the votes of those hon. members opposite which he otherwise would not have obtained if those hon. members had known what they know now.

Just mention one name.

I do not propose mentioning the name of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp), because nobody in this House ever does mention his name.

Never mind your sarcasm, just mention one name.

The statement which the Minister of Defence made in addition to the resolution, misled a number of members, because the first thing which he did after that was to send a number of people belonging to our Defence Force, overseas. He added that tail to his motion in order to get the support of members who would otherwise never have supported him.

But will you not mention just one name?

That motion was passed by this House, and the first thing which the Minister did immediately afterwards was to have steps taken by the Department of Defence to send part of our Defence Force overseas. I am referring to the 150 young fellows of the Marine Reserve.

That is your imagination.

Is it imagination when the Minister of Defence himself, in answer to a question, says that these people are part of the Defence Force of the Union? I say that the first thing he did, after the resolution had been passed, was to send these 150 youngsters overseas to go and fight in the Royal Navy.

I did not send one of them.

The hon. the Minister has already given numerous different explanations. He may just as well add another one.

They had the courage to go and fight.

But the hon. the Minister of Defence gave the country a false impression on the 4th September when he said that we were not going to send any troops overseas.

I did not send any troops.

They are sons of South Africa whose corps is part of our Defence Force.

They all wanted to go.

The hon. member voted in favour of the resolution that the Government was not to send any forces overseas, and many people supported the Prime Minister and are still supporting him to-day for that reason. On platforms in the country the question is being continually put: “But is it a fact that the Government is not going to send any forces overseas?”,

Not one man was forced to go.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Calvinia has the intelligence to understand what we are dealing with.

You have a lien on wisdom. You failed your matric five times but now you want to pose as the great know-all.

I do not know whether the hon. member dare repeat outside what he is saying now.

You failed your matric five times.

I do not know whether I have to defend myself but it is an infamous lie, and I challenge the hon. member to prove it. I did not fail my matric once. On the contrary, if the hon. member will look into my school record, he will find that I never failed in any examination. It is an infamous lie. The hon. member is at liberty to look into my school record. I never failed one examination.

Five times, not once.

It is an infamous lie, and I wish the Standing Rules could compel the hon. member to withdraw this statement. If he has a grain of manliness he will withdraw it.

You have a lien on manliness and knowledge.

It is a low insinuation, and if the hon. member is a gentleman he will withdraw it. I challenge the hon. member to prove it. I wish to get back to the point I was dealing with. It looks like a case of fraud for us to take a resolution here not to send people overseas, not to send any forces overseas, and immediately thereafter to send 150 youngsters over the water to go and fight in the British Navy.

Did they go against their wishes?

That is not the point. It does not matter whether they are volunteers or not.

Did they go against their wish?

I must ask the hon. member for Calvinia not to interrupt so constantly.

The point is not whether they went voluntarily, or whether they were compelled to go. The point is that the Government secured a majority on the motion that no forces would be sent overseas. In that way the Government secured support from the platteland. It is being said now: “We have a Government to-day which is not, as they did in the last war, sending Union citizens overseas, but they keep them in the country.” The Prime Minister came along, here with a motion which was accepted, that no forces would be sent overseas. We heard in the lobbies that hon. members opposite would not have supported him if it had not been for the tail of the motion, that no forces would be sent overseas. Hon. members opposite can get up and tell us whether that is so or not.

Mention names.

The point is not whether people were asked or whether they were commandeered.

What about the young fellows who joined the Royal Air Force? We did not send them.

The Government gave the people a wrong impression when they said that no forces would be sent overseas.

I have not sent any overseas.

We have a number of young fellows here who are members of our Marine Reserve, they are sons of South Africa who joined up and received their training at Union expense, partly on the “General Botha.” [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has said. He was continually interrupted by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) who is such an expert on war and wounds. Did the hon. member ever take part in a war? I wish to say a few words on a point which was emphasised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. I want to speak about this sugared pill, that South Africa would take part in the war, but that no forces would be sent overseas. The hon. member for Moorreesburg was right in what he said, and so am I, because I know that on the Saturday before this decision was come to we discussed matters with members opposite. We said that we were going to vote for neutrality and we asked what they were going to do. We said that we wanted to keep out of the war. Hon. members opposite replied to us on the Monday, “We are safe now, we are not going to send anyone overseas.” That was the sugared pill, and that was why many people supported the Government, and why a number of members opposite are supporting the Government.

Mention names?

That is fool’s talk.

It is not fool’s talk. What are the members of Natal doing, and what is the young generation in Natal, in Durban doing? That is the answer. It is not fool’s talk, so keep quiet. There is talk about volunteers. Only a few days ago I was visited by a young friend of mine who had lost his job. As a result of war conditions the business in which he had been engaged had gone under. He is a young and able Afrikaner. There was no way out for him and he came to ask me whether he should join up. He had no prospects and he had to make a living in order to look after his wife and child. He had no option but to join up, and I could not stop him. And then he said to me, “I only pray to God that I shall be employed for the defence of South Africa, that I shall be called on within the limits of the Defence Act to defend; if I have to go beyond that the Government will have to look after my wife and child as best they can, because I am not going beyond that. In that event they may just as well shoot me.” Those are your volunteers! It is said that nobody will be compelled to go. If people are on the Reserve the question will be asked, “Who of you want to take part?” and we know what human psychology is at a time like that. The Prime Minister felt that we should take part in this war, and if young fellows are asked what they are going to do what can they answer? Those young fellows whom the hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke about were called for by His Majesty’s ships, and they have been employed overseas in the units for which they were trained. If any of them can pay their own passage money, let them go. Some of them have their ideals, and it is most laudable that they should have such ideals. We have sons of South Africa who have covered themselves with glory, but what I object to is that this condition of affairs is being brought about—that this sugared pill has to be swallowed. As soon as a little bit of the sugar has gone off the pill it will become a bitter pill, and we shall find people who are so situated that they will be forced to join up, just like the young fellow I spoke about. He is one of the thousands of those so-called volunteers. And now I come to the vague statement by the Prime Minister about our borders. His answer was just as vague as the sugared pill was deceptive. He said, “I cannot, and I dare not accept the position that South Africa’s borders only go to a certain line.” Surely we know where South Africa is, and where Central Africa is, and where North Africa is? Why cannot we have clarity? Let us assume, for instance, that our friends of to-day should break those bonds of friendship to-morrow. It would mean that if our friend goes into the war to-morrow, knowing what he is doing, we shall have to defend him. We have been driven into this war with our eyes open, and on the 4th September we had the temerity to declare war against Germany. I deliberately use the word temerity. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) shewed us a large map, and pointed to mountains and forests, and told us about the troops which could march into those areas, but he also told us that there should be elasticity in regard to the borders to which they could proceed. That is our difficulty— that elasticity. If we were a little clearer on this question of our borders the situation would be less akward so far as we are concerned. When the Prime Minister was speaking here I interjected, and I asked what was the position of our Permanent Force. The Prime Minister answered that only people who went voluntarily would be sent there, and now I want to ask the Prime Minister this: there are people in our Permanent Force who feel that they do not want to go beyond the borders of South Africa. What is going to happen to them? Will the Minister, as Minister of Defence, see to it that they are protected, or are they to be victimised because they do not want to go beyond the borders of South Africa? I shall be pleased if the Prime Minister will give us a clear answer on this point. The hon. member for Krugersdorp spoke about elasticity—I am afraid that that might mean that our borders might go as far as Egypt. And for that reason I want to ask the Prime Minister whether, as the position is not clear, it would not be desirable for the people of South Africa to know exactly what they may expect. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that it would be better—as the day may come when South Africa has to be defended, when every man will have to do his duty—does he not think the time has now arrived to satisfy the people, and to say, “It is expected of you to go so far in order to defend South Africa.” I can assure the Prime Minister that every member on this side of the House is prepared to defend South Africa to the very bitter end, but we want to know what is before us, and what is expected of us. This lack of clarity has existed since the 4th September, and for that reason I ask that hon. members of this House and the people outside shall be given more definite information. When the Prime Minister said that he would not send any troops overseas, his supporters voted in favour of the war motion, and the promise made by the Prime Minister that he would not send any troops overseas was to my mind the reason why they went back that night and thanked the Lord, because the statement made by the Prime Minister that no troops would be sent overseas gave them the opportunity of finding an excuse for their actions. Under the conditions prevailing here to-day we can only hope to get a united people if the Prime Minister will come along with a definite statement, and if he will say to us “Look, if any troubles should arise, you will be expected to go.” The people of South Africa will be more satisfied then, because there is a fear to-day that we may be made a convenience of by the Empire for the colonies of defending the British colonies. Let England defend her own colonies if it should be necessary.

If we want to help a friend, does it mean that we are being made a convenience of by the Empire?

I said that we would be quite prepared to defend our own country, but nothing more.

Does that mean that we are being made a convenience of by the Empire?

I am sorry if the Prime Minister regards this as an insult, but…

But surely we can talk like civilised beings.

I am convinced that if we have to go beyond our borders to defend the Empire the position will be abused, and large numbers of South African troops will have to go to defend…

Voluntarily?

Even if it is voluntarily. There are large numbers of young fellows who, because of their youth, and in consequence of the way they have been brought up, may possibly like to go voluntarily, not knowing what is ahead of them. But I ask the Prime Minister to tell us clearly what his plans are for the future; let him take us and the people into his confidence, let him tell us what we may expect. If he does so I feel that the Prime Minister will find that there will be much less difficulty in this country, and he will find that if a day should come when South Africa has to be defended we shall stand as one man for the defence of South Africa.

During the debate which has been proceeding here this afternoon we succeeded in getting clarity on one point, which we have been trying to get for the last few months from the Prime Minister. I am referring to the point that all costs which may have to be met in respect of troops going voluntarily overseas, or to North Africa, will have to be borne by the Government; in other words, by the people of South Africa. When on previous occasions we asked who was going to pay those costs, the answer was always evasive—and up to this afternoon it has been evasive, but now the Prime Minister has been compelled to tell us that so far as he is concerned he never had any doubt but that it was our duty—this is a matter of duty and honour—to pay the expense in connection with the people who may be killed outside the Union of South Africa—who may be killed not in the interests of South Africa, but in order to fight the Empire’s war. The question arises why the Prime Minister was not honest to the people of South Africa; while on the 4th September he made a solemn declaration to the people of South Africa that troops would not again be sent overseas.

That an army would not be sent overseas again.

It would appear that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) has been asleep since the 4th September. Let me read the resolution to him which was passed at the time—

1. (2) The Union should carry out the obligations to which it has agreed, and continue its co-operation with its friends and associates in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
2. (3) The Union should take all necessary measures for the defence of its territory and South African interests and the Government should not send forces overseas as in the last war.

It is very clear therefore that it is laid down in that resolution that we are not, as in 1914, to send troops overseas. We had the statement from the Prime Minister this afternoon that we have to pay the costs, although hundreds of our people are starving here. But the Empire has to be helped, and hundreds of our young people have to be sacrificed for the sake of the Empire. This must be another instance of British fairplay, and now we hear this argument—“Yes, but these young fellows go voluntarily.” Those 150 young men who were sent to England, according to hon. members over there, also went voluntarily to Great Britain. Now I want to ask this: if the young fellows at Voortrekkerhoogte, or the young fellows in our Air Force, joined up voluntarily in the same way as the young fellows who went overseas joined up voluntarily on the General Botha, will they, when they have to go to North Africa, be asked to go voluntarily, or will it be assumed that having joined up voluntarily a couple of years ago they will voluntarily go to North Africa? I think it would be most unjust to send these young fellows to North Africa. They should be given an opportunity and not only an opportunity, but a guarantee, that if they do not want to go to the North they will not be put on the street. Failing that it will mean again that pressure is being exercised, because the parents, or the man’s wife and children will be starving if men are put on the street. They will then say that they would go and fight rather than see their wives and children starving. The Prime Minister has told us that we have to bear the expenses of this war, and he has told us that that is the sacrifice which we have to make for the sake of the Empire, and that we not only have to pay the costs of the war, but compensation for the people who are killed and wounded, which may run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Now I come to the next question which refers to the borders of the Union. We have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister: “Tell us where the borders of the Union are, as contemplated in the Defence Act.” In reply to that question we were told that we, had no cause to be alarmed, because the intention of the Act was that South Africa should be defended, and nothing else; it was not intended that we should fight for the Empire. To-day, however, we are told that the interests of South Africa also lie in Kenya and Tanganyika. I hope my Imperialistic friends will not take it amiss, but I recollect that in 1899 the Boer forces also went over our borders, and when President Kruger, after Spioen Kop, told the English that the time had come to make peace, the answer was “Yes, but you went over your borders.” In those days that was British fairplay, but now we have to go across the borders in order to defend ourselves, and now it is not wrong. The Prime Minister should tell us where the borders of the Union are. We have had quite enough of Nakop, which one day is on this side of the border and the next day on that side. The Prime Minister said that our borders might be regarded as an elastic conception. To-day our borders may be the Zambesi, to-morrow Kenya, or as we find in the circular letter sent to the officers, the Equator. It may become so elastic that next week it may be the Mediterranean, and eventually our borders may become so elastic that it will be in Flanders. We do not wish to make things unduly difficult where it can be avoided, but we must be honest to our people, and tell them honestly and exactly where we stand in connection with these matters. We must not say on the one hand that we are not going to send people overseas, and then say the next day that although people did go overseas they went voluntarily. They may have gone voluntarily, but the position is that the South African taxpayer has to bear the expense, and that at a time when our own countrymen are suffering starvation and misery. We do not blame the Minister of Defence for not keeping a straight course, and for not telling us exactly what the Government’s policy is. He always leaves an opening to enable him to escape later on, to enable him to tell us that we did not understand him correctly.

He should be consistent and take our people into his confidence, and it is because he does not do so that we oppose him on these matters. We want the public outside to be given the correct information about these questions. The Minister of Defence should remember that we may lead the Afrikaner people, but he will find it very difficult to force them. He will find himself in the wrong box if he sends the Afrikaner people along the wrong track by misrepresenting the position to them. If the people find out that they have been misled and that they must suffer as a result, they will take the Prime Minister to task very severely. I appeal to the Prime Minister to tell us on this question of our borders where, in the opinion of the Government, our borders are. It is no use his telling us that our borders are elastic. I am no believer in that sort of thing, because if we take up the attitude that a certain thing is elastic, we may never see the end of it.

I should be failing in my duty if I did not say a few words on the Bill which is now before this Committee. I do not know whether I quite agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and with the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) where they say that if members opposite had known that volunteers were to be sent overseas they would not have supported the motion of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I feel that they are in their right places now, and that hon. members sitting on that side of the House would have voted for it because they are Imperialists. But to come and tell us that those 150 young fellows went voluntarily, that does not convince us at all. The position is that there was no need for the Prime Minister to have allowed them to go. He now comes and tells us that we will all have to pay for those people. If we look at this war we can come to no other conclusion, especially if we calculate the amount which we may have to pay in war pensions which still have to be paid as a result of the last war, but that in days to come we shall have heavy burdens placed on the taxpayers of this country. With whom does the Prime Minister desire to make war? When I read the Imperialistic papers it looks to me as if there is no war, because they are winning everywhere and the Germans are all running away. In this afternoon’s paper we see that England and France have command of the seas and that there is no danger. Then whom do we want to make war against? Do they want Italy to be dragged into the war, and do they want our children to go and fight in the fever areas of Central Africa? If that is the intention they may just as well be sent overseas, because they will perish just as easily either way. One of the colonels came to my district to hold meeting to advise people to join up. He invited me and he told me that at each of the meetings he wanted to make an analogy. He came to Robertson, where he held a meeting, and he told the farmers that they had to extinguish a fire before it got to their farm, as otherwise it would ruin their farm. I told him that I was also a farmer, and I should like to add something to what he said. If a fire is started by my brother and I had warned him not to do so, because the day was hot and the wind in the wrong direction, and the fire makes straight for me after he has started it, have I then to put out the fire? The Prime Minister over there started the fire, and now he wants us to help him put it out. It is their work to put out that fire. We warned him that he was busy starting a fire and we told him it was a dangerous thing to do. Do not come and ask us now to send our sons, and then tell us that only volunteers will be sent. The question put by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) also arose in my mind, namely, when is a man a volunteer? He joined up five years ago as a volunteer—has he to put down his name again now? The Prime Minister made a promise and we are told that we must accept the Prime Minister’s word. I am prepared to accept his word, but the Bible tells us “cursed be he who puts his trust in princes,” and the Prime Minister is not even a prince. No, I do not place trust in anyone, and we must bear in mind that this is a question of life and death. The Bible also tells us that everybody is given to lying. I do not want to say that the Prime Minister will tell a lie, but we must insist that the public be told who these people are who are to be called up. I am pleased the Prime Minister has told us clearly now that we shall have to pay. A number of Saps outside have told us that we will not have to pay, but we are told clearly now that we shall have to pay, and if we bear in mind that we are already paying £38,000 per day, then we wonder what is going to be the end. The Prime Minister is a man of war and I am not. Let him tell me clearly whom we are at war with in South Africa? I feel that with these few words I have uttered a warning and that it cannot be said, if trouble should arise, that we have failed to warn the Government.

hon. members opposite are trying to cause a panic with the story that people are to be commandeered for the sake of fighting the Empire’s wars, and no doubt we shall read in Die Burger and Die Volksblad to-morrow that the Prime Minister has sent 150 of our young fellows overseas to go and fight for Great Britain, that we shall have to pay the expense, and that we forced them indirectly to go.

But is that not the truth?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad tried to scare the public, but he should know that the Afrikaner people are not so easily scared, and he knows that it is useless to try and frighten the public with ghost stories of that sort. He quoted the Prime Minister’s motion that no forces were to be sent overseas, and he immediately attempted to split hairs and to differentiate between forces and an army. I understand that these young fellows went over as volunteers, but the hon. member is now trying to scare the public by telling them that the Prime Minister has broken his word. Hon. members over there will not succeed in their efforts because the public does not believe them any more.

What about Kuruman?

There 2,500 Afrikaners voted for the Prime Minister. They are not afraid, and if we should have an election in two months’ time, we would take Kuruman. Hon. members do not mention Losberg, and if the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) wants to do the right thing, he should come over to this side of the House and join us. What about Hopetown? What has happened there should be proof to hon. members that they are going to lose Hopetown as well at the next election. The people have got to know the Prime Minister since 1912, and they know where he stands. He does not come here to make a speech one day, to frighten the people away from participation in the Empire’s war, and the next day when a monument is erected in memory of the people who fell in the war, he does not, as others have done, turn round and say: “These Afrikaners have given their lives for the honour and freedom of South Africa.” We cannot carry on in the way hon. members over there are doing. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) had the privilege of being a Minister for years, yet he gets up here and starts splitting hairs. The people are not going to allow themselves to be upset by him. The hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said that I should blush when meeting people outside. Let me say this, if there is one man who should blush it is he. He left the pulpit and now he is trying to divide and embitter the people. But those hon. members have no feelings left. They want everyone who is an Afrikaner, and has an Afrikaans name, to join them in embittering the public. We are not going to do it, and the people are not going to allow themselves to be scared.

I do not want to refer to the personal remarks made by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). I think we can leave it at that. I want to discuss a very serious matter, namely, the point raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). This afternoon he made another attempt to create the impression that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) made a promise that the Union of South Africa would be prepared to go and fight up north to protect the British colonies, and there is a very serious matter involved. He also had in his hands the speech made by the Prime Minister at Bloemfontein, and I want to devote the time at my disposal to read what the Prime Minister said, and after that I want to quote the exact words used by the hon. member for Gezina as reported by the Cape Times, when the hon. member addressed the Imperial Press Conference.

Quote those words.

That is exactly what I am going to do. Before quoting those remarks I want to say that it is not fair—I do not want to make use of a stronger term—that those words were used in that manner. The Prime Minister in his Bloemfontein speech said, inter alia—

And then I want to quote these words—

This was quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister as a statement made by Mr. Pirow to the representatives of the British territories who attended the Imperial Press Conference in 1935.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was reading from a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at Bloemfontein and I just want to continue. He said [translation]—

I contend that the hon. the Prime Minister quoted the hon. member for Gezina unfairly and I want to prove my contention. I am now going to read from the report of the speech of the hon. member for Gezina, who at the time was Minister of Defence, the report of the Cape Times, dated 6th February, 1935. I want to read that in order to show what the actual words were in their proper context. He said—

And now we come to the most important sentence—

That is the matter referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Kensington and also by the Prime Minister, and I am now trying to put this whole question in the right perspective. I maintain that it was not fair of the Prime Minister, followed by the hon. member for Kensington, to create the impression that the hon. member for Gezina at that time stated that South Africa would be prepared to respond to any appeal for aid from other portions of British Africa. The words quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech at Bloemfontein create the impression that the then Minister of Defence said that should British Africa be in danger South Africa would come to its aid immediately. That is not correct. Why did the hon. the Prime Minister leave out the reference to an attack of black on white?

What date was that?

I said already that I was quoting from the Cape Times of the 6th February, 1935.

Ah!

When the hon. member for Kensington referred to that speech and when the hon. the Prime Minister quoted those words, there were no “Ah’s.” I say that it was unfair to quote those words out of their context and to create a false impression, as the hon. member for Gezina explicitly referred to a conflict between white and black. He also mentions the possibility of coloured people being used in connection with transport battalions and natives as ammunition carriers. Here the Prime Minister comes along and quotes half a sentence from that speech and the hon. member for Kensington tries to emphasise that impression. I strongly disapprove. The hon. member for Gezina never said that we would be prepared in any case to defend British territories in Africa, but he was only referring to difficulties arising between black and white and that in such a case we would be prepared to come to the aid of other territories. I hope that after having read these words in their right context, we will have no more repetitions of this misrepresentation of his statement in connection with fighting in Africa.

I would have preferred to defer any remarks I intend to make in reply to the last hon. speaker until the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) was in his place. The hon. member for Gezina knows very well that this is a debate in which his name is bound to occur almost as frequently this evening as it occurred this afternoon. If the hon. member chooses not to be in his place this evening, we cannot help it. Therefore, I am going to deal with the hon. gentleman and with some of his speeches and his policies just as if he were here. I would much prefer him to be here so that I could deal with him face to face, but as he is not here I can only hope that some of his hon. friends who sit in front of me will tell him what I have to say. I remember a speech made by the hon. member for Gezina some twelve months or two years ago in this House when he was crossing swords with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), and he concluded that speech amid cheers from his friends, some of them who are still sitting on this side of the House, with the words: “They can’t take it.” If there was an hon. member in this House of whom I would have said that he could “take it” and could exchange and receive and give hard knocks in debate, it was the hon. member for Gezina, but I am beginning to doubt that now. I am beginning to doubt the capacity of the hon. member for “taking it”. I remember three or four weeks ago in this House he received some sharp knocks from the hon. gentleman who sits next to me, namely the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley). Did he remain in this House to reply to those knocks? No, he went off to a select gathering in Pretoria presided over by his late opponent in the last election and confided to that meeting his opinion of these two hon. gentlemen I have referred to.

Order, order. I don’t wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is going much too far now from the clause before the Committee.

Well, sir, perhaps I had better not pursue that, and I will come back to this afternoon. My doubt as to his capacity to “take it” arose again this afternoon when I was addressing this House. Did he attempt to reply to me in argument, or did he descend to coarse and offensive personalities? I leave my hon. friends opposite, who are very good judges indeed on that matter, to answer that question for themselves. Let us, if we have to discuss these matters upon which there is the very gravest difference of opinion, discuss them in as temperate a spirit as possible, let us exchange sword thrusts in debate, but do not let a gentleman who prides himself on the dignified position of the hon. member for Gezina, say that he refuses to stoop to reply to front benchers on our side; do not let him, when attacked, descend as low as he did this afternoon. If he has anything to say, let him say it in his place in this House, and say it in debate.

You are off the point.

Yes, well, I am coming to the point. One of the most amazing speeches I can ever recollect having listened to in this House from any member whatever, let alone an ex-Minister of Defence, was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Gezina. He said when taxed by me with the fact that he was apparently giving support to the amendments moved by the hon. members for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) and Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), limiting the definition of South Africa so as to make it coincide with the definition of the Union of South Africa as a political entity, that if and when a danger threatens from beyond our frontiers, then Parliament can be called together, and “we can then amend the Defence Act in any direction you may require”. Mr. Chairman, I would like to picture the hon. gentleman twelve months ago when he was Minister of Defence, replying to such an argument coming from the Malanite benches, I can visualise the degree of scorn, the vituperation with which he would have replied to such an argument, which he would certainly have called cowardly and unpatriotic. And yet to-day he is forced to depart from his original position, he is forced to stand up and use an argument of that sort. Just picture it! A fleet of an eastern power is within 24 hours’ sail of Lourenço Marques, the army of a northern power is within a day’s march of the Zambesi, and then, and not till then, Parliament is to be called together and we are to be asked….

What nonsense.

Of course it is nonsense, that is what I am trying to say. That is exactly what I am saying, I never listened to such nonsense in my life, and I thank the hon. member who interrupted me. The ex-Minister has told us we wait till then to call Parliament together, pass a measure through all three stages, and I wonder what sort of Opposition we should have in a case of that sort (I know what sort of Opposition we have got now), and then solemnly put it on the statute book, that in view of the approaching invasion from an eastern or a northern power, we have amended our Defence Act so as to readjust the boundaries of the Union. Surely anybody who knows the record of the exMinister must have felt sorry for him this afternoon when he was reduced to replying to the Prime Minister with arguments of that sort. He felt obliged to throw overboard his friends, the Portuguese. For five years he has proclaimed that we stand under the same obligation for the defence of the Portuguese territory as we did in regard to the British territories in the north. I should not be a bit surprised if one of these days he receives a demand from the Republic of Portugal for the return of that horse! Now, with regard to the speech which was read by the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit), with which I am going to deal in a moment.

That is not the only speech the hon. member for Gezina made during the five years’ period he was in charge of our defence forces. In Johannesburg, in November, 1934, for instance, this is what he said—

He was referring to real trouble then.

Now let me deal with his famous speech at the Imperial Press Conference, to which reference has been made by my hon. friend, the member for Marico, who I may say was not interrupted from this side. He has accused me, sir, along with the Prime Minister, of deliberately and unfairly distorting the effect of what the hon. gentleman said at that conference. I am not fortunate enough to have kept the Cape Times report, but I have a copy of the Argus report, which is substantially the same as that read to the House by the hon. member for Marico. I am not going to read the whole of that, but the portion which the hon. gentleman read twice, and which I agree with him is the kernel of the speech on that particular point. Now what did the hon. gentleman say? After saying that we could not undertake any overseas adventure because it would probably lead to civil war in this country, he goes on to say—

That is a general and unqualified statement so far as it goes. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) made an attempt to draw our attention away from the amendments which have been moved, by making an attack on the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and he tried to quote from speeches which the hon. member has made in the past. He also quoted from a speech made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), just as he quoted from a speech by the hon. member for Gezina. But we know what has happened. The Imperialistic press has tried to prove that the Minister of Defence heartily agreed with the participation in any war, and we, as Nationalists, continually quoted the speeches of the Minister and asked for an explanation. Why did the hon. member for Kensington not quote the other speech made by the hon. member for Gezina? He quoted from a speech made by the hon. member for Gezina outside this House in 19.38, but at our request the hon. member for Gezina made a very clear statement in that same year. He told us that we would not take part in a war, unless the real interests of South Africa would make such participation inevitable. He says here—

That was the statement on behalf of the government. He continued to say to the hon. member who is now Minister of Labour—

This statement was made on behalf of the government and also on behalf of the hon. member for Kensington, but to-day the hon. member for Kensington says that we will be held up to ridicule when we say with the hon. member for Gezina that, if we are threatened, we will call together Parliament and decide what we are going to do.

What is the date of the speech you have quoted from?

7th September, 1938. The hon. member for Gezina went on to say—

In other words, the House will decide on the question of participation in the war, after hon. members have consulted their constituents. Why did the hon. member not say it was a laughable statement at the time? No, he applauded it, when the hon. member for Gezina on behalf of the government stated, that the House would decide whether we would participate in war, only after members had consulted their constituents. I want to ask the Prime Minister: What has become of this promise which was made on behalf of the Government on the 7th September, 1938, that we would not participate in the war, unless hon. members had decided to do so after consulting their constituents? The hon. member for Gezina said—

Now the hon. member for Kensington comes along and says that it is a ridiculous suggestion that the people should be consulted, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Gezina made this explicit statement on behalf of the government. At the time the hon. member did not say that it was a laughable suggestion. But the hon. member was so strongly opposed to the policy of the hon. member for Gezina that he was almost kicked out of the caucus— we know what happened. Now I want to put another question to the Prime Minister. We have moved an amendment here this afternoon in which we asked that the borders of South Africa should be defined. We want to know exactly where the borders are. In this connection I want to ask the Prime Minister something concerning the recent visit of the Mayor of Johannesburg to Cape Town. On his return to Johannesburg, he made the following statement—

What is the information?—

Here the Mayor of Johannesburg, after a trip to Cape Town where apparently he was in contact with the Prime Minister, comes along and makes such statements. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether he gave information of a confidential nature to the Mayor of Johannesburg, and whether possibly the Mayor was in communication with the Minister of Mines. He says that something is bound to happen in South Africa, but he regrets that he is more or less under oath and is not in a position to divulge the information. He appeals, however, to the people to be prepared to make preparations, because things will happen which will involve South Africa. We have every right to ask the Prime Minister what he expects is going to happen in South Africa, and in the circumstances we have the greater right to ask him to define the borders of South Africa. We also have a suspicion that something is going to happen, and if we read such a statement, we have the right to be informed by the Prime Minister of what he has up his sleeve, and what he expects will happen in the near future. He cannot shake off that responsibility by simply saying that he is going to participate in the war with volunteers. We know the true position. The Prime Minister made the promise that should troops be sent to the north of Africa, they would go as volunteers. He informed us that he is not going to commandeer people. But suppose for a moment that those troops suffer defeat because an insufficient number is sent. Is the Prime Minister going to sit still, or is he going to commandeer? In 1914 we were told that South-West Africa would be occupied by volunteers. But fighting had only been in progress for a few months when the Prime Minister came along to commandeer people, and rebellion resulted. [Time limit.]

I am really amazed at the quotations which have been read here with reference to the borders of South Africa for defence purposes. It is rather interesting to listen to these quotations. But hon. members on the other side should realise the significance of the statements made by the exMinister of Defence before 4th September, 1939, when he was dealing with these matters. I would like them to accept his statements made from time to time as the policy of the previous Government, and also as the policy of the present Government as far as the defence lines of South Africa are concerned. It is somewhat remarkable that hon. members on the other side, instead of discussing amendments to this clause, to-night are only trying to justify the statements made by the hon. member for Gezina.

We are now listening to you for a change.

Yes, I hope the hon. member will listen carefully to the statements made by the hon. member for Gezina which I am going to read. On the 7th September, 1938, the Minister of Defence said—

And then he says—

From this we see that he was referring to operations beyond our boundaries. What is more, I should like to know whom he was expecting, by whom could an attack be made on our snores? By the black races? I should like the hon. member for Gezina to inform us by whom an attack could be made on our coast, and whom he had in mind when discussing our military activities. Did he expect an attack by black hordes or by a civilised country? I also want to quote what he said in reply to the hon. member for Moorreesourg (Mr. Erasmus), and if what I am quoting here is not correct, then I would like the hon. member to say so, fine hon. member for Moorreesburg said in a speech—

When the hon. member states that this was said by the hon. member for Gezina, is that not an adequate reply to the arguments we now get from the other side in connection with the defence line ox the Onion? I take it that the policy as adumbrated by the hon. member for Gezina is still the policy of the United Party, a policy which was fought by some members on the other side, but which was supported by the majority of members who are now sitting on the other side of the House. One thing we noticea in connection with the speeches of hon. members on the other side, was the attacks on the person ox the Prime Minister. Repeatedly we heard hon. members say that the words of the Prime Minister should be doubted when he gets up in this House and maxes a statement, net me tell hon. members that, whether we differ from the Prime Minister or not, he at least has always been consistent. I have often differed from the Prime Minister, but I always knew where to look for Jan Smuts, and the former Prime Minister also knew where to look for him, but neither the Prime Minister nor I knew where to look for many of the hon. members of the other side. He was always consistent and the Defence Act and Regulations before the House say very explicitly, as read here, that our forces can be used for the defence of the Union within and outside the Union, but in South Africa. In any case I do not see how it matters very much. One may just as well leave those regulations alone. As long as I am of the opinion that I am protecting the rights and the safety of South Africa, the defence line of South Africa may be right up to Abyssinia. If I want to be a good South African, it should be my duty to defend the country wherever it is necessary. We have, however, members like the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), who has never been outside his own district yet and who is not interested in the safety of our country, as long as they and their followers can draw the subsidy on their produce. I go further, I am prepared to assist in the defence of the Union and accept the Prime Minister’s word, because however much I may have differed from him in the past I have never found it necessary to doubt his word. But notwithstanding the remarks and insinuations on the other side against a man of his honour, we know where the Prime Minister stands. The hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) has raised a point here and based his whole argument on a decision given by a chief justice to the effect that the Zambesi is the border of South Africa. Let me say, however, that hon. members there are very anxious to quote what suits their arguments, but they leave out the rest. I want to point out that another chief justice gave a decision, but hon. members there do not quote that case because it does not suit their purpose.

What was that?

It was a decision on perjury in the Free State and they said that that decision was influenced by politics. There we have a case of two men who are above suspicion and both of them have given decisions, and hon. members on the other side justify one decision because it suits them, but the other they do not want to justify, because it does not suit their purpose. That is what we may expect from hon. members there. I accept the statement made by the Prime Minister, and support that, and I believe that people outside, to a very great extent, notwithstanding everything which has been said here, and in spite of the sarcastic remarks of hon. members on the other side who so far have done nothing themselves, stand behind the Prime Minister and trust him. If the Minister of Defence has to defend the country with volunteers, I want to give him the assurance that he can expect very few volunteers amongst hon. members on the other side. We will be satisfied if there are members amongst them who will have the courage to come forward, if, what they consider to be the borders of South Africa, have to be defended.

Where are the borders of South Africa?

I refer the hon. member to the statements made by the hon. member for Gezina.

Reply to that question.

I still have enough faith in the statement of policy of the hon. member for Gezina to respect those statements and I have already referred to two of them. [Time limit.]

I think that previous speakers have made enough quotations from the speech of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) to show what the policy of the Government was, and also what, in the main, is the policy of the present Government. The matter is, to my mind, so clear that it is not necessary to refer to any other speeches, but we can decide on the merits of the matter itself what the policy of our country ought to be. Whether hon. members opposite perchance differ about the declaration of war by the Government, whether it was in the interests of South Africa or not, is not a matter which has anything to do with this point. Reasons have been given from this side of the House why the participation in the war is actually in the interests of South Africa. We have indicated that from a moral point of view and from an economic point of view, and from the point of view of self-defence, it is desirable for us to participate. Hon. members on the other side say that we are going to spend much money on the war, while people in our country are in a deplorable position. If I have to spend £300 to protect £1,000, I would immediately spend the money. If I have to spend money to save my people from ruin — because that would have been the position if we had remained neutral — then I should be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. It was in every respect in the interests of South Africa to declare war. From that point of view I want to deal with a few points which were raised by hon. members. The question is constantly being asked where the attack is being made and who is the aggressor. It is easy to speak in that way, but the time when you are attacked may come very suddenly, and then it is not a matter of years in which we can prepare ourselves and can wait for the attack, but then it may be a question of hours. We cannot wait until the enemy is at the Limpopo, on our borders, we cannot wait and do nothing now. It is our sacred duty, if we love our country and sympathise with our people, to prepare ourselves, as any self-respecting people would do, to defend the country in case of an attack. I do not know whether I misunderstood the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), but he, I think, referred to what is known as the Royal Naval Reserve, and he said that there were men who belonged to the unit and whom the Government had sent overseas. Is this another case like the Simonstown Agreement? In connection with Simonstown, an agreement was honourably entered into to defend Simonstown, and we, including hon. members on the other side, voted the money year after year. We know that the money was being spent to train troops, in order to do our duty. I happen to have here the Defence Act of 1912. If I understood the hon. member for Moorreesburg wrongly, I hone that he will correct me, but this Royal Naval Reserve comes under the Act, and it says here—

1. (1) In pursuance of the Colonial Naval Defence Acts 1865 and 1909 (Great Britain and Ireland) and with the approval of His Majesty-in-Council as therein provided, the Governor-General may and is hereby authorised to raise a body of volunteers to be entered on the terms of being bound to general service in the Royal Navy in emergency. That body of volunteers shall form part of the Royal Naval Reserve constituted under the Naval Forces Act, 1903 (Great Britain and Ireland), under the designation of the South African Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and the Governor-General may offer to place the division, together with the officers thereof, at Mis Majesty’s disposal for general service in the Royal Navy.
2. (2) The division shall be maintained at the expense of the Union out of moneys provided by Parliament.

hon. members opposite voted together with us the necessary money for the purpose.

Are they a part of the Defence Force or not?

Yes, and we are only carrying out our duty. Year after year the money was voted, and now hon. members want to create the impression of our having done something that was illegal, and which was hypocritical, but hon. members knew all the time what the position was, just as they did in regard to Simonstown.

Was Simonstown attacked?

That is not the point The agreement says that we must defend it if it is attacked, but one does not wait until the attack is made before you put the defence in order. We are now at war. If, as it happens, the British Fleet is so strong that it is keeping the enemy away from Simonstown, then that does not mean that I must not do my duty, and that I need not fulfil the agreement. We do not know how the war may develop, and possibly Simonstown may actually be in danger. When I undertake anything then I want to fulfil it honourably, otherwise I must, just as Ireland did, openly declare in times of peace that I am remaining neutral, and then I must wait until the war comes, and then say that I do not want to carry out the agreement any further. I want our people to uphold their honour, and I say that it is dishonest for me to enter into an agreement and then not to fulfil the agreement, when the person with whom I made it is in difficulties. Now to return to young fellows who were sent overseas, and the statement that we have misled the people by saying that no persons would be sent overseas. There is the Act, and the reserve has existed for all these years. As far as I understand, the men were not sent away under the section, but they went voluntarily, and the British Government is paying them.

Did you not say that men would not be sent overseas?

We established the reserves years ago, and the conditions were well known. Hon. members knew of the regulations which applied to them.

But you decided not to send any people overseas.

We did not send these people. They went voluntarily, and the British Government is paying them.

Your resolution said that no volunteers would be sent tither.

I now want to add something about the borders. I think that the late Minister of Defence put the matter fairly clearly at the time. I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp’s) military experience and performance, and I ask him if he were attacked, if an attack came from Northern Africa, and we are equally interested with the other political parties in warding off the attack, will the hon. member, as a competent general, allow his troops to remain idle here or on the Limpopo, or would he go and attack at the best spot? [Time limit.]

The tendency with hon. members on the other side is to remind us of our attitude in the past, especially the attitude of those who formerly belonged to the United Party. The resolution of the 4th September altered everything. We laid down a policy for the United Party that we would not take part in the war, and we practically agreed to a policy of neutrality, unless we were attacked. If we were attacked we would defend ourselves. But what happened on the 4th September? We were not attacked, there was no necessity for us to defend our country, but little South Africa has gone and acted aggressively and declared war on the mighty Germans. We are evoking a statement by Germany that they will put us in our place. Most of us would be prepared to sacrifice everything to defend our country when we are attacked, but when you are premature, and declare war first, then the position is entirely changed. Hon. members opposite cannot reproach us with having changed our attitude of prior to the 4th September. They are the people who have changed their policy. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) knows so much about logic, but here now we have an example of how illogical they are. As a backbencher and a young member, it is very unpleasant for me to attack a man like the Prime Minister and to disapprove of his policy. The world knows him as a man with a big brain, and I am prepared myself to admit it. But we cannot do otherwise than condemn his policy. The people in the country feel uneasy, and are not certain where we stand. On the 4th September the Prime Minister clearly said what the policy of the Union ought to be. He laid down four principles, and one of them was—

The people in the country understood it in that way. Now, however, we learn that the Prime Minister is indeed going to send volunteers to fight outside South Africa and he has admitted that the cost would be borne by the Union Government. That is the policy of the Government now. In the 1914-’18 war I went voluntarily to fight overseas, and my military pay was paid by the Imperial Government. Here we are told by the Prime Minister that the Union of South Africa will this time bear all the expense, notwithstanding the fact that he himself stated that we should not send our forces overseas, as was done in the last war. Are we not entitled to be uneasy? He is therefore going even further than in 1915. Step by step he is going further. When we were passing through the crisis of the 4th September, and the statement was made by the Prime Minister, people in my constituency said that the Government were not even going to send volunteers. Then I said: Mark this, it will not remain at that, that is only the commencement. And not six months after that my words were proved correct, and now we are going a step further than in 1916. I think that we have every reason to question the statement of the Prime Minister, and I feel very uneasy and that we may go further and further. It is possibly being said that Northern Africa is not overseas. I would like to know how they are going to get to Central or North Africa? Believe me it will be by sea.

By the bush-cart.

Yes, hon. members opposite think that one can get there in quite ah easy way. So far as that is concerned, it is a very dangerous step that we are taking, just to co-operate and to say “yes” to everything. But I think we can take it that there will be so few volunteers that they could be conveyed there by bush-carts.

By an ox-cart.

That is worse still. Hon. members opposite say the intention of the Prime Minister at that time was not to send the people to Flanders. I say however that I would prefer my son to go to Flanders rather than to Central Africa. We have now had six months of war, and poetically no one has been killed at the front yet, except that they have had a few accidents. But send your son to Central Africa, then he not only runs a risk of being killed by a bullet, but it is an unhealthy part where people soon die of malaria and therefore it is no use saying that we must not send the men to Flanders, they are only going to Central Africa. That is, in my opinion, far more dangerous than their going to France. Accordingly, that argument does not hold water. With regard to the question where our boundaries are, the Prime Minister ought to be very clear. I went to Central Africa, and I know what the danger of fever is in those parts. I think it would be very foolish of the Minister, if he is going to attack, to send his troops to those fever regions. I do not know what the tactics are which the Prime Minister is following, but in my opinion it would be better to say that we will not send our men to the fever areas, but that we will keep our men healthy here, and if the enemy comes through the fever zone, then it will weaken him and we can more easily destroy him. It seems to me that those are sound tactics.

I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but as it proceeded I began to wonder whether there ever was a debate carried to such heights of absurdity as this one. Here we are at a time when the country is at war discussing the policy and tactics to be followed in the event of war! Well, I would like to bring hon. members opposite back to a sense of the realities and remind them that this is a War Bill, a Bill, i.e., to enable the Minister of Defence to provide for the protection of South Africa. South Africa is engaged in such a war that if by some dread chance that war goes against us, it may very well mean the end of that democracy which hon. members opposite defended with such ardour a few days ago, and yet on this very important measure these same hon. members are now arguing and discussing academic questions of boundaries and tactics, sir. The most urgent business before us is preparation for this war. Note, I say preparation for. We have been fortunate enough to have been given six months in which to prepare, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite instead of helping are holding up this Bill by moving quibbling and useless amendments and are generally holding up this most important business of Parliament this session. Actually, their conduct is such as to throw discredit on the whole system of democratic government and of Parliament, that system which they profess to love. The Opposition seems, at this present stage in the debate to desire to lay down an exact definition of South Africa’s boundaries, and to determine now whether we can follow the line of the Zambesi, or exclude Angola or any other territory. Sir, the man who wants to lay down, at this stage, where and when we shall fight, and where and when volunteers will be sent, is. I repeat, carrying the discussion on this Bill and the whole question of defence, to the point of absurdity. I would like to remind hon. members opposite that they have no guarantee that if the hon. minister were to lay down the exact boundaries of South Africa, the enemy would be good enough to observe those boundaries. It is obvious that the Minister of Defence, the man who is responsible for the safety of South Africa, must be guided by the circumstances of the particular occasion. It is the action of the enemy that will in part dictate his conduct, and he cannot be bound by any hard and fast rules or boundaries or tactics laid down beforehand. It is because I realise this that I have spoken and I think the House should realise also that the burden of the responsibility for the defence of this country is on the Minister of Defence and on none other and that therefore he must have a free hand, he must be free to be guided by the circumstances and the demands of the occasion. And that is why I propose to vote against all the niggling and quibbling amendments that have been moved.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) referred to the insinuation that persons who sat on the Opposition side were dishonourable in regard to the agreements that we had with England and the British Commonwealth of Nations. I challenge the hon. member to prove to me that the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), which he moved on the 4th September, did not include everything, that it did not include all the obligations and agreements which we had with the British Commonwealth of Nations. We even wanted to maintain Simonstown, and I challenge them to prove that we were not honest towards the British Commonwealth of Nations or towards the League of Nations. No, we are for South Africa alone, but they always run like a little foal behind the big horse. They think that it is nothing but honest to follow after England, and that, according to them, is the duty of South Africa. I feel very sorry for some of the hon. members over there. When I look at the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) I feel very sorry for him. I think that he is still just as true an Afrikaner as I am. I know his heart, and I know what his point of view is. It is said: Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are. But that we cannot say of him. I may create the appearance that I am going against my own country, but I feel that we are here as representative persons, and I also feel that within a short time we on this side of the House, will one of these years get into office, and, therefore, we must always retain our feeling of responsibility. The difficulty of the present Prime Minister is to draw a boundary line for South Africa. Can he do so? No, my view is that he must do it by three lines. How can he do it? Because we have three forces, as you will see in this clause. We have the land, the air and the sea forces. We have already used our forces beyond our borders. In what way? I ask you where the boundary line of the sea runs, is it not the three-mile limit from the coast of South Africa? But what were our aeroplanes doing when enemy ships were in the neighbourhood? Did they not go beyond the boundaries of South Africa, and did they not go further than the three-mile limit? Since the Defence Act was passed, great developments have taken place. Since the World War the struggle in the air and on the sea has developed, and the air force is of so great importance that the air may be the deciding factor. That is my view. What I would like to suggest is, that the Minister of Defence should say: I am going to draw the boundary for the land forces at the Zambesi, but for the air forces it will be as far as they can go, can go and return to South Africa. You can draw a line there, and in the same way we can make a boundary line along the sea. I do not believe that we, if enemy ships came, would say that our air force should not shoot outside of the boundaries of South Africa, but I want the Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, to tell us very clearly where our land forces are going to, where are our boundary lines there? I want to say that if a conflict comes on the Zambesi, on our borders and we obtain a victory there, then I think it is nothing but our duty for us to go across the Zambesi and pursue the enemy. But not before then. That is what I believe, and I agree with the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) that tactics are the greatest asset in the world. We have had experience of tactics. The Prime Minister out-manoeuvred us with tactics, and now he is sitting there. We were too straightforward, and that is why we are sitting here. We must outmanoeuvre the enemy by tactics. What gives us the greatest trouble with our defence system is transport. And when we go into those unhealthy areas, if it is the tactics of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Defence to send the troops far beyond the Zambesi, then they will become sickly and be weak when they come into contact with the enemy. No, we on this side are prepared, if South Africa gets into trouble, to sacrifice more blood for South Africa than the medley sitting on the other side. That was proved in the past, and it will be done also in the future.

I have no doubts about you.

He doubts himself.

There are several of them on the other side who sit there like parasites to make money out of the war. They pleaded for war, not to shed their blood for the country, but to fill their pockets, and after the war we put our own people on to the streets. What I would very much like to have from the Minister of Defence is this. He said that those who had previously Joined up as volunteers, would have the choice as to whether they wanted to go beyond the borders of South Africa. Those volunteers who do not now want to volunteer to go further afield — what is the Minister going to do with them? I feel afraid and uneasy that those men who will not volunteer to go further than the borders of South Africa, will be thrown on to the streets one of these days. These very people have voluntarily sacrificed themselves, sold their few head of cattle, and if they are thrown on to the streets now, what will become of their families? I would like to beg the Minister to give a reply to this, because I know that nearly half of those men in the camps who signed the previous contract to go voluntarily, do not want to go beyond South Africa, and I feel uneasy about those people being thrown on to the street. [Time limit.]

When I was interrupted by the time limit I was endeavouring to reply to the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit). That hon. gentleman, you will remember, had accused the Prime Minister and myself of a grossly unfair misrepresentation of the speech and the promises made by the hon. member for Gezina, then Minister of Defence, at the Imperial Press Conference in February, 1935.

He proved that.

I am trying to answer that if my hon. friend will allow me. I agree with the hon. member for Marico that the kernel of his speech on that point was contained in the paragraph he read, which I am going to read now, although I am reading it from the Cape Argus version, which does not vary substantially from the Cape Times version. The Minister began by saying that this country would not commit itself to any overseas venture, that if it did, there would probably be great internal trouble in this country; and he went on to say this—

Yes. The hon. member made it appear that he had said, “We will only take part if there is an attack by black on white.” Did he say that? No, he gave an unqualified assurance that we would take part if there was any trouble in any part of British Africa, and then he gave the reason, and it was this— that that would probably involve an attack by black on white. And now the hon. member for Marico twists that—the twisting is by him, and not by us—he twists that into a statement that only if there was an attack by black on white would this Union feel itself obliged to interfere. I have read the ipsissima verba. Now I want to give the setting in which that speech was made. It was made in February, 1935; it was made after the first border clash in December, 1934, between Italy and Abyssinia, when war clouds were piling up and it was perfectly obvious that Italy intended to overrun and conquer Abyssinia. We must take that speech in the setting in which it was made and confirmed by many subsequent speeches by the hon. member for Gezina. And therefore for the hon. member for Marico to get up and say that all the hon. member meant was that if there was an attack by black on white we would interfere, but in no other circumstances, that contention is not borne out by the speech itself. What the hon. member for Gezina had in his mind was probably this— that Italy was about to conquer Abyssinia. She was about to enrol, as she did, a very large black army and that would have constituted a serious menace, as we all know it did, to the considerable European population of Kenya. It was in that spirit that the hon. member made his promise.

You know that he has denied that.

He may have denied it on platforms outside but not in this House.

Why do you not open your ears? You know that I said it here.

Cannot the hon. member listen to criticism of his policy without being offensive?

Why do you not listen?

He is so important that he does not answer any remarks or questions even if they come from the front benches of this House.

Not even if they come from you.

I shall now read once more what was said in that interview in October, 1936—this is what the hon. member for Gezina said to Lord Francis Scott….

You know that he has denied that.

I shall read what we are told he said—

Notice what he said about 300 aeroplanes— the hon. member knows quite well that our aeroplanes are manned not by volunteers, they are manned by members of the permanent force, and the promise therefore was to send a portion, if not the whole of our permanent force to Kenya. If the hon. member for Marico doubts my interpretation of this speech then I ask him to turn to his colleague immediately in front of him. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) gave his interpretation of these various speeches, and this does not come from a “Jingo Imperialist,” but from the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He gave his interpretation of the speeches and the promises made by the hon. member for Gezina, and that has already been quoted in part by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns), but I would quote it again. This was on the 7th September, 1938, to which debate the hon. member tor Bloemfontein has alluded. The hon. member for Moorreesburg began by saying that the Simonstown Agreement—which he was attacking at the time—was not going to end at Simonstown, and this is what he said—

The Minister of Defence then interrupted—

And then the hon. member for Moorreesburg went on to deal with the potential causes of war into which the Union might be drawn, and one of these potential causes of war was this very policy of the Minister of Defence in regard to the rest of British Africa. In the Cape Times of August 27th there was a summing up of that policy in the leading article, and this is the summary—

And then the hon. member for Moorreesburg continued to give his understanding of these speeches, and this is what he said—

Do not these speeches speak for themselves? Why go to anyone else for their interpretation?

I am going to give the Minister’s reply. When the Opposition were fighting him on the defence vote in 1938 they twitted him with having given this undertaking.

And he denied it in the same debate.

He (Mr. Erasmus) said this—

That is how the Opposition understood the policy of the Minister of Defence, and for them now to come forward in an endeavour to try and bolster up an amendment which limits the boundaries of the Union to its own political boundaries is absolutely hollow and false. May I go further. The Minister of Defence read a type-written document to this House on the 7th September, 1938. That is a document, portion of which has been referred to by the hon. member for Bloemfontein. In that he set out more elaborately than ever before the defence policy of the Union. He set it out on behalf of the Government as Minister of Defence. Portion of that statement has been referred to by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). Another portion I am going to read. I am afraid I shall be interrupted by the time limit. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) in his speech a little while ago, made a point which I cannot let go by in silence, because I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it. He dealt with the Simonstown agreement and said that this country had redeemed itself from that agreement. I know that the Minister of Justice also said that on platforms in the rural areas. I just want to point out that there is a misunderstanding. In the first place, Ireland did not redeem itself in connection with the harbours which are in a similar position to Simonstown, namely, Cork, Berehaven and Loch Swilly. Those three harbours Ireland are still holding under a similar agreement to the one we have in connection with Simonstown. Only that our agreement in connection with Simonstown was made seventeen years ago, and that with Ireland possibly two or three years ago. If then the hon. member for Vereeniging comes here and says that we are at war on account of Simonstown, then he is missing the mark, and I want to ask him if the argument holds good, was the position not the same on the 1st September, 1938, and on the 28th September, 1938, when the then Ministry agreed to the proposal, and confirmed it, i.e., what was moved by the Prime Minister on the 4th September, that is to say the then Prime Minister? That motion says very clearly—

Here we have the position very clearly that when in 1938 the Cabinet agreed that that would be the policy of the Government, then Simonstown lay in its present position, and the contract also was the same. If you had remained neutral at that time, how then can Simonstown drag us into the war to-day, as the hon. member for Vereeniging said? I only rose to point this out to him. The £10,000,000 which Ireland had to pay was in connection with an old-established tax, a sort of perpetual quitrent which Ireland had to pay year after year, and then they said they were not going to pay it any longer, but would continue to pay a round sum of £10,000,000, and in return for that Great Britain gave them certain commercial advantages. The hon. member’s history is a little confused.

We have to-night again had references here to what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is supposed to have said. It surprises me that hon. members do not go a little farther and look at what the policy of the party was, so that they can compare it with the statements that were made. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) says that he is prepared to do so. Let me quote from Hansard of the 23rd March last year. The Prime Minister was asked by the Nationalist Party to make a further statement on the policy of the party, just as a declaration of policy was made in 1936. I do not want to read it all over again, because I do hope that hon. members there who were members of the party all those years, have studied the policy of the party. It was surprising to me during the past few days, to hear from English-speaking persons to whom I spoke, and who as a matter of fact are leaders, that they deny that the policy was that Parliament should decide, with the greatest possible unanimity, and that otherwise we would not enter the war. In English surely it says “almost unanimously.”

Where do you get the translation from?

Of course, it is once more that hon. member who does not know what the policy was of the party to which he belonged all those years. He has now adopted the policy of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He was, however, for all those years a member of the United Party, and I want to refer him to Hansard of 1936, where he can read the statement which the hon. member for Gezina made. The policy was laid down that Parliament would decide, but four conditions were added, and these are now being covered up as much as possible, which of course is not honest. The late Prime Minister made the following declaration last year—

That is the tone of the whole speech, and then later on he says—

Good heavens!

Then hon. members on the other side approved of the statement, in connection with which the present Minister of Labour called out “good heavens.” To-day the Minister of Labour is sitting with them, because now they have a different policy. What did the present Prime Minister say on the 22nd August? We find that also in Hansard. There was a reference to the fact that the Prime Minister had been put the question at Senekal on the 25th June, 1936, whether the same thing would not occur again that did in 1914. The Prime Minister first of all gave the assurance to the meeting that only the Union Parliament could decide whether South Africa would go to war or not, and when he was asked whether we would not have repetition of 1914, his reply was that the difference between 1914 and the present was as wide as the poles. In 1914 we were not a sovereign independent state, and then Great Britain decided in London on the policy of the dominions. The Prime Minister pointed out that to-day we were a sovereign state, and ourselves decided questions of peace or war. What did the present Prime Minister say—

Now he comes here and at the start of the session, he had made such a detour that I could not follow his tracts, but he gave a kind of assurance that England was attacked and was in danger of losing. In other words, he announced the policy as stated by him had been proved true. I, however, cannot accept it. Now, however, we come to the organ of the Government, Die Suiderstem. This newspaper rapped Die Burger severely over the knuckles six months ago, and said that they should not quote the Cape Argus or the Cape Times for the purpose of interpreting the policy of the Government, but Die Suiderstem. What did that paper say ten days before the declaration of war in a leading article? It quoted how Die Burger, according to it, had distorted the whole matter and said—

Then Die Suiderstem says—

Where is the mistake? Here you have the Government organ which says that the truth is to be found in its columns, and that that paper declared the policy of the Government. That paper said that Ehgland was not attacked. Yet the Prime Minister comes and says that England was attacked, and that that is why we had to go to war. There is, to my mind, not the least doubt that we are only at war to-day because England has declared war. When we were members of the United Party the organ of the Government agreed with us, but to-day the opposite policy is being followed. Who, then, has changed, we or the other side? Die Suiderstem says that it is as clear as day that South Africa should not be in such a war. It said that ten days before the war, and I ask where the mistake lies. The hon. member for Kensington should make some enquiries and find out about it. He at that time accepted the statement of the Prime i Minister, and it was the policy of the United Party, but now precisely the opposite policy is being carried out.

I should like to accept the invitation of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Viljoen) to debate once more the rights and wrongs of the origin of this war, and the rights and wrongs of the Government’s participation in it, though I Think if I were to accept that invitation you, sir, would probably rule me out of order. We are busy to-night discussing an amendment which seeks to restrict the borders of the Union, for the purposes of the Defence Act, to the Union itself, and it is on that point, and on that point only, that I have been endeavouring to speak. I was endeavouring to say when I spoke previously, that the attitude taken up by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and those on the opposite side of the House who follow him, is entirely inconsistent with his former declarations, with his former speeches, and with his former statements of policy. The hon. member for Victoria West is now trying to widen the discussion by going into declarations made by the Prime Minister. I am, at the moment, concerned only with the exMinister of Defence (Mr. Pirow). Whether he chooses to remain in the House or to walk out of the House is a matter for his own private conscience and for his own sense of the fitness of things. For my own part, if I felt that my conduct was the subject of discussion in this House to-night, I would, at least, pay this House and my own conscience the courtesy of remaining in the House to hear the discussion. I was interrupted by the time limit. It is unfortunate that one is interrupted by time limits. When I was interrupted, I was endeavouring to recall to the House a former declaration of defence policy made by the Minister of Defence on behalf of the Government on the defence vote on the 7th September, 1938. He began by recalling the very statement which my friend the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) read out to the House in regard to the general policy of this country in regard to war—

[Interruptions.] The hon. gentleman will not deny that the mandate was quite unambiguous.

Oh, was it?

The mandate given by Parliament was, of course, perfectly unambiguous. There was no ambiguity about the declaration of the Prime Minister on the 4th September, and it was carried through this House by a substantial majority. Nothing is said in this declaration of policy about a two-thirds majority, or any other majority. I read again, and I don’t want to be interrupted, because I am trying to reply to the hon. gentleman—

That is Parliament, and sir, Parliament gave that mandate. Then I go on, that was the foundation on which our defence policy rested. And then he said—

That was the Malanite school of that day. The other was—

That was the school to which I myself belonged. Now, what does he say. The Minister of Defence of that day said—

These are his words—

Sir, did he ever look forward to the day when, in a shame-faced manner he would stand up in this Committee and give his support to an amendment moved by his newfound colleague, to exclude Portuguese East Africa from the Union for defence purposes? Then, sir, he goes on to say a little later on—

Now why did he glory in that fact? What is the reason behind it? He goes on to give the reason, which he says is that we have the British Navy. The British Navy, he says, would stand between us and any invasion that would ever render this country the theatre of a first-class war like it was in 1899 to 1902. Then he goes on to say that our relationship with the navy is governed by the Smuts-Churchill agreement “which we shall carry out in the spirit as in the letter.” So, having based his whole defence policy for the Union on the fact that we do not need to have a very large force because no major war would ever be fought in this country, he then went on to give the reason, which was the British Navy.

No, no. Our geographical position. You are misquoting him.

Then he goes on to deal with various other factors in our defence policy, which time will not allow me to detail. At the bottom of column 2295 he goes on to say—

Now, sir, what would he have said to any member of the Malanite Opposition who suggested that you could take our forces as far as the Limpopo only and stop there, or even to the Zambesi and stop there? Even my hon. friend the member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) was manly enough to admit that he would be man enough, Defence Act or no Defence Act, to follow any enemy which attacked South Africa over the Zambesi.

If we had an invading enemy, that would be, but we have not got that at the moment.

Of course we have not, but the time may come when we may have an invading enemy. The whole position, as the member for Gezina was the first constrained to admit, has changed totally and radically in the last five years, and one of the factors in that change was the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, and the fact that Italy was massed on the northern borders of Kenya. Again and again the hon. member for Gezina has said that our boundary, for defence purposes, for our commitments in Africa, is not the northern boundary of the Union, but the northern boundary of Kenya. I cannot understand how the hon. member can be allied with hon. gentlemen whom he fought so bitterly up to twelve months ago, and who, when they fought for a neutrality policy, were held up by him to the bitterest scorn. If the hon. member for Gezina had said “I have changed my policy, I have changed my ideas, it is true I said these things but I never meant them, or I have changed my mind” one could understand it, but he does not even attempt the task himself, but he leaves it to his supporters who rush to his defence. He does not meet the attack himself, but goes out and leaves the defence to others, and what can the country think of an ex-Minister of that calibre. [Time limit.]

To me as a man with a little military experience, the case of the Prime Minister has now become a little clear. What is the object of his regulations and his war policy? He merely wants to extend the borders of the Union of South Africa a little in order to realise his ideal in the past of a greater South Africa. That used to be the policy of the Prime Minister in the past, and it is his highest aim to-day. Hence this declaration of war. But why cannot the Prime Minister say so to the country and to this House? That remains dark to me. I do not know whether it would not be practical for him to tell us, or possibly whether it is not in the interests of carrying on the war? But I think that the people rightly see what the object of the Government is in connection with this war. We have a Defence Act, yes, that is true, but what is happening? We are now attacking, and I say attacking because let me just quote a little from the remarks of the Prime Minister when sanctions were applied to Italy. He then said that Italy might conquer Abyssinia, but she would not hold Abyssinia, just as little as Prima De Rivera of Spain had succeeded in Morocco, just as little would Mussolini succeed, and he also would die an untimely death in the African desert. Just imagine, Haile Selassie will now have to be reinstated at the cost of the blood of sons of South Africa. The Minister of Native Affairs went so far as to make certain promises in England on behalf of the Government and the people of South Africa, and to-day the Prime Minister is unable to tell us where the boundaries of the Union of South Africa are. To my mind again it is clear that the Prime Minister cannot make that statement, owing to that promise which was made by the Minister of Native Affairs when he was in London. We may probably read it again later on in a blue book, just as we read what he said in 1910 when it became known later on from the books by Lloyd George. The Minister of Native Affairs said the other day that if there were any farmers in South Africa who were suffering from land hunger, then they had better wait a little till we could conquer land later on in Abyssinia. If that is the policy of the Government and of hon. members opposite, why do they not tell us so, why should it remain hidden? I say that it is time we heard the truth, and we cannot stop at these vague statements to know what will happen in the future. I think that those statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs are nothing but a challenge to Italy. We should realise that Italy is a state with over 47,000,000 inhabitants, and with an army of 7,000,000 men which it can put into the field, and then the Prime Minister wants to satisfy us that he, with a small number of volunteers, can operate against this first-rank nation, which can manufacture her own guns, her own aeroplanes, her own tanks and her own poison gas, and which owns a complete fleet! The Prime Minister knows that it is not a correct attitude, and he will be obliged to commandeer if such an attack is made. Let me remind the Prime Minister of the days when he told us, who were also members of the Active Citizen Force, that Gen. Lukin would make an attack on South-West, but that he would not commandeer us. When, however, that did happen he subsequently told us that we were merely volunteers. The same thing happened in 1913, and the Prime Minister knows how he kept us serving for nine days in white shirts during the Rand strike. Again he told us that we were only volunteers. We do not want a repetition of what happened in those days. We want to know where we stand. For us to go to war with volunteers against a great nation like the Italian nation, in a country like Central Africa or North Africa, with all their troubles, malaria and black water fever, and the like, is a thing which we cannot agree to. Are we going to operate with volunteers, with the troops of the colonies, and with a contingent of coloured troops from Portuguese territory against a country like that? I say again that it is impossible for the Union to fight against such a nation, and I feel that it will once more be a case of the volunteers being the first contingent, and eventually people will be commandeered. And why does the Prime Minister not tell us the truth? I can only say that the Prime Minister, with his challenge to a country like Italy, is looking for trouble, and he will get trouble. Then I am very-sorry that the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) is not in his place, because I wanted to say a few words about his personal attacks on members on this side. I had, to my dismay, to hear the hon. member say here that there was an hon. member on this side who had struggled for so many years to pass his matric. We also can say similar things about the hon. members opposite, and I can tell the hon. member for Calvinia that he cannot even cure a cold. I could tell him still more—he should simply bury his mistakes with pills with the assistance of a death certificate. [Time limit.]

I am sorry to revert to this point, but as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is not in his place, and as he made this attack on the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in connection with the statement of the policy of the United Party, and as the hon. member only partially put it, and moreover put a completely wrong interpretation on it, I am obliged to revert again to this policy of the party, and I hone that the Chairman will allow me to deal with it fully. This statement was made by the hon. member for Gezina as mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington. Now let us stop a moment and see who has interrupted that policy — did we do it on this side, or did those hon. members who, on the 4th September, remained on the other side of the House? It was the policy that we were not bound directly or indirectly to take part in any war in Africa or elsewhere. We would take part in no war, except where the real interests of South Africa made such a participation unavoidable. We find two conditions implied in that statement. I want to be honest and say that hon. members opposite were in their hearts convinced that the interests of South Africa were affected by this war, when they voted for war on the 4th September. That is the first condition, but then we come to the second condition, namely, that such a participation should be unavoidable. The Prime Minister himself, at the start of this session admitted during the debate of the peace motion by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), that on the 4th September war was not yet inevitable. In other words, we need not have declared war at that time. This policy of the party was, therefore, interrupted there by hon. members opposite, according to the statement of the Prime Minister himself. The statement went further, that even if a war appeared to be inevitable then the Government would nevertheless not take part in it before “the people, through their representatives in Parliament, with the greatest possible unanimity” had given its consent to such a course. In that there lies a big condition. The reference is to the largest possible unanimity. The hon. member for Kensington has again now, directly after he had quoted that statement, spoken of the greatest possible majority. The Prime Minister and all those members of the Cabinet who discussed this statement, and did so in 1936, are surely people with commonsense. If they intended to use the word “unanimity” in the sense that it should mean the majority, then they would have used the word “majority” and not “unanimity”. In English it reads “almost unanimously”. When we said it in this House the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) called out: “Where do you get that from?” In other words, that hon. member broke the policy of his party because he did not know what the policy of his party was. Then we find that another person — I do not want to mention his name here because he is unable to be here to defend himself — issued a statement from the head office of the United Party in Cape Town, in which he said that there was no difference between the words “majority” and “unanimity”. Could you ever believe that there was no difference between those two words?

What hope have you of ever getting unanimity here?

We know that we will not get unanimity, and that is why we talk about the greatest possible unanimity. We also know that we cannot carry on a war with a divided people. If the Government of the day really intended it to be a mere majority, then they would have used the word “majority”. In other words, if Parliament consisted of 100 members and there were 51 for and 49 against, then the Government could, with perfect right, declare war, because it had a majority. That, however, would not be the greatest possible majority. And that is what has happened now. The Government declared war with a small majority.

It was thirteen.

Yes, but the three native representatives were not entitled to vote.

I ruled that amendment out of order, and the hon. member cannot now speak about it.

I am mentioning it here because you allowed the hon. member for Kensington to discuss that declaration of policy here, and I hope that you will allow me to reply to him.

It is not so.

He read out parts of the declaration of policy. He left out parts of it, and the inference he drew was quite wrong. I hope that you will give me the right of showing how hopelessly wrong that inference was.

The speech of the hon. member has nothing to do with the amendments which are before the Committee.

If you rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, then I bow to your ruling, but I am very sorry about it, because it means that this House will remain under a wrong impression.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is not in his place. He created the impression that he did not agree with the view that our naval reserve constituted a part of the defence force of the Union. He wanted to give this House the impression that those men were in the service of the Royal Navy, and that we had no say over them. The second thing he said was that those men were volunteers in the Royal Navy, and as such they were engaged on the war in London. Well, the hon. member is not putting the case correctly. There is no doubt that our naval reserve, and the lads who are serving in it, are a part of the defence force of the Union. Last year we asked a question in this House whether those lads who belonged to that unit were Union citizens, and the reply was that there was not one of them who was not a Union citizen. In the second place, we were given the reply that the naval reserve was being trained under the Admiral, but with regard to all questions of policy, the Admiral would act directly under the Minister.

The Minister of the Union?

Yes, the Minister of the Union. That is the regulation which I read.

Read on.

I cannot read on because there is nothing more to read. So far as the policy is concerned, they come under the Minister of the Union. In answer to further questions of ours we were told what the intentions of the Government were. We asked whether the Government intended to abolish the R.N.V.R. or whether the Government intended to organise it in conformity with the policy of neutrality, in case Britain was at war. The Government replied—

That is the first time that I heard the suggestion in this House that our lads who are being trained as sailors, and are under the control of the Union Government, have voluntarily joined up with the Royal Navy, and therefore come under the control of the British Royal Navy. That simply does not coincide with the facts, and it is untrue. We pay for their training, and they come under the Union Government as part of our Defence Force. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Vereeniging and also the Prime Minister are trying to say to-day that he did not want to send those men, but that they were not under the control of the Union.

They are a part of the British Navy under the Defence Act.

The Minister now says so, but that is an untenable position. Even the Government took up a different attitude previously.

Read section 22.

That section is there, but the Government has already often stated that its policy in connection with that Act of 1912 with regard to things that happened after it, has long since been altered, and the young lads are no longer left to the mercy of the British Fleet and the Royal Navy. If it were so then the British Government could do what they liked with them, and they are our nationals. Does the Minister want to suggest that the lads who joined up are not part of our Defence Force under section 10? That section provides that the Naval Reserve is a part of the Defence Force. Does he want to say to-night that the men come under the control of the British Government?

Yes, under the control of the British Navy.

Then I can only Say that it is news to me. Last year the Minister concerned answered a question in connection with this matter, and the reply does not coincide with what the Prime Minister is now saying here. I think that it will be news to the whole of South Africa, and specially to the parents who sent their sons voluntarily to join that section of the Defence Force—I know a few of them from the country districts—it will be news to everybody to learn that the lads do not come under the Union, but under the British Government.

The Act states that they are at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the Royal Navy.

But a question was put to the Minister concerned last year, and he said that they stood under the Government of South Africa.

It says here, “In consequence of the Colonial Naval Defence Acts.”

But surely that is no longer applicable in practice to South Africa. I do not believe that even he would say that. I know that the point is not definitely mentioned in the Status Acts, but in practice he will not say that the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1865 now applies to the Union? It was correctly stated last year, in reply to the question, that the lads came under the Union Covenant. When section 22 refers to His Majesty the King, then it means nothing else than the King of South Africa, the King acting on the authority of the Union Government. I am astonished to hear the Prime Minister taking up that attitude.

“For service with the Royal Navy.”

Very well, for service with the Royal Navy to the extent to which the Government of South Africa gives its consent thereto. In so far as it concerns questions of policy they come directly under the control of the Government of South Africa. It would be surely too astonishing that we should have to spend money on the lads of our country to train them to come under the Defence Act of the Union, and that they should nevertheless have to be at the disposition of the Royal Navy and of the British Government.

That remained unchanged. The Status Acts did not alter it.

Can the Minister of Defence come in the year 1940, and say that the Act of 1912 lays down that the lads whom we trained and the lads who are a part of our Defence Force and come under the control of the Union Government, do not’ in reality come under the Union Government, but are at the disposition of the Royal Navy and the British Government.

Yes.

That is shocking and completely baffles me.

The Minister of Defence said very clearly here that he did not now intend to explain the provisions of the Defence Act, which were vague in regard to the boundaries of South Africa. If there ever was an occasion for making a clear statement about the boundaries of South Africa, then it is now. The Union has a Defence Act and not a War Act. The object of the Act was certainly to defend the Union, and when the country is threatened by an enemy, it does not make any difference where you go to meet the enemy, how far you go in his direction, so long as you succeed in the object of defeating the enemy. But what is the position now? South Africa declared war on the 5th September against a power which is 7,000 miles distant from the Union. South Africa was therefore not threatened, but was the aggressor. Now the question arises where South Africa is going to attack. The Minister has up to this very day not yet said who the enemy was that was threatening South Africa. Is it Germany, will it possibly shortly be Italy? Then we have, in the first place, declared war against the wrong enemy. There are numbers of people who are being asked to join the army as volunteers. Can you expect to make a success of the organisation if you do not clearly say what you intend doing, and how far north you are going to send them? We know that in the nortn we have a natural enemy, namely, fever. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) has already said that it would be wrong tactics to send troops up to the fever belt. They will die there owing to the natural enemy. If the Prime Minister says that we should not send the men into the fever belt, but that we are going to keep them within South Africa, then it will give satisfaction. On the 4th September the Minister declared that no troops would be sent overseas, that he was only breaking off relations with Germany, but that we would not send any troops. No one can make any objection to preparations being made against possible troubles, but where are the borders, how far will you go to meet the enemy? Our country is now even threatened. We declared war, but where are we going to get contact with the enemy? We challenge the enemy, and we want to know where we are going to meet him. That is what every burger in the country wants to know. If he has to go to the front he at least wants to know where he is to meet the enemy, and who the enemy is.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swart) referred to the question of where we were to meet the enemy. The actual point is that the enemy will not ask us where we want to meet him, but the enemy will meet us where it suits him best, and therefore the Prime Minister put the matter correctly, when he said that we must regard the term “South Africa” as elastic, so that if it is necessary we can meet the enemy in the forests of Central Africa or at Mombasa, or wherever it may be. Therefore we must make our interpretation of the Defence Act so elastic that we can meet the enemy where we want to and where the enemy is.

Go to Germany to meet him there.

The hon. member knows well enough that we are not going to Germany, nor to Europe, but that it is a question here of the Continent of Africa, and now hon. members are insisting that we should fix where we will meet the enemy. It is clear that that will depend on circumstances, and that the enemy will not ask us where we want to meet him. Suppose an enemy were to land at Mombasa, and attack it from the sea—it does not lie far south of the Equator—then we will have to meet him there. But suppose an enemy comes, say through Abyssinia and Central Africa, then we will have to meet him there. Suppose the danger comes from West Africa, then we shall have to be there. The enemy will not ask us where we want to meet him, but will meet us at a point which strategically is the most advantageous for him, and, that is why it is so necessary to leave the matter open and let it remain elastic, so that if an enemy, for instance, elected to attack us at Mombasa or along the west coast of Africa, however far north it may be, we shall be ready and we shall be able to meet him. Hon. members seem to think that this is a football match, which you can decide to settle in Cape Town or Johannesburg or Durban, but the enemy will not regard the war as a football match. The hon. member for Lichtenburg now knows better, and wants us to fix the boundaries.

The hon. member has forgotten more about military matters than you have ever learnt.

Then, as the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) now says, he is one of the new shining lights in military matters.

One would think that you knew something about it.

We feel that the hon. member just wanted to say something to keep the debate going, and to see whether a hare could not be put up. Now let me, for the umpteenth time repeat that the Opposition should remember that where you are dealing with an enemy, we do not know who will be our enemy in the future, and that it is not a question of meeting them here or there, but we must regard it in this way, that the enemy forces will concentrate somewhere, and that the Union forces would then meet them there before they entered into the territory of the Union. I think that every hon. member who has the interests of South Africa at heart will see that from a strategic point of view it is best for the Minister of Defence to say that it would be in the interests of South Africa to say: Look, we are a big country and we may be attacked at any point. Therefore, to decide that we will do nothing, until the enemy attacks at a certain point, and that we shall then meet them, would be folly. The Prime Minister says: No, I will leave the question open, and we will meet our enemy when he comes. Why should the Opposition now insist on the Prime Minister stating where he is going to meet the enemy? Do you want to assist the enemy by telling him where you will meet him? No, I think that hon. members have learned from the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that a future war will probably be waged in the forest country of Central Africa, and it would be very unwise and unstrategic for us to announce to our enemy that if he comes to a certain place then we will meet him. More than ever I agree with the Prime Minister when he is asked where we should go and attack the enemy. When we look at all the arguments and interjections of the Opposition, whether they contained any constructive criticism of what the Minister has placed before the Committee, then we find that they do not want to assist to keep the enemy away from our territory, but that they want, if possible, so to amend the policy of the Government that it would be in favour of the enemy instead of in favour of South Africa. I shall continue asking hon. members to stop those abominable methods of assisting a potential enemy. I make an appeal to hon. members, because the responsibility also lies on then-shoulders, just as it does on ours, and I want to ask them not to try to influence the Government to fix the line of defence of South Africa, because they will be playing into the hands of a potential enemy. [Time limit.]

I would just like to warn the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) to be very careful, and not to raise any objection if we insist on the borders of the Union being fixed. It will be in his interests for the boundary to be fixed on this side of the bush country, because if it is fixed on the other side, and he has to go and fight in the forest zone, then he will possibly be kept there. He exhibited a map here, and I expected that he would point out to us on the map the spot where he was caught. I want to revert to what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said. He made quotations here in regard to a speech which the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) made, and then he referred to the reply of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). He then quoted from the Cape Times to show what the interpretation was which had been put on the hon. member’s speech, the same interpretation that the Government is giving to it to-day. But he did not add to that that the hon. member for Gezina had denied that interpretation of the Cape Times; and now it is represented that the interpretation of the Cape Times was right. That is not fair, because the hon. member knows that that interpretation has been contradicted. I could quote from the same speeches which the hon. member quoted from, where the hon. member for Moorreesburg expressed the view that certain defence measures of the hon. member for Gezina were intended to put South Africa into a position to take steps for the defence of the British Empire. I am reading here from Hansard of the 7th September. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said that the newspapers supporting the hon. member for Gezina, gave that interpretation to his proposals, and to that the then Minister of Defence replied that he could not help what interpretation a newspaper gave to it. But it is not stated to-day that the hon. member for Gezina took up that attitude at the time. We urged here that the Prime Minister should accept the amendment in which or by which we would settle what the boundaries of the Union were, and it was rejected. The Prime Minister gave reasons why he did not see his way open to do so. We, however, have every right to ask what the policy of the Government actually is. The Deputy-Prime Minister clearly said in an interview during his, visit to Great Britain that the British Government and the British people could be assured that if British colonies or territories were threatened, South Africa would defend them. He did not make the least qualification, and he therefore included the Gold Coast and even Egypt.

Since when has Egypt been British territory?

Let me just ask the hon. member to look at the map, then he will see that Egypt is painted red. The hon. member for Kensington said that the hon. member for Gezina had given an unqualified assurance that British territories throughout South Africa would be defended.

Who said it? I was only quoting.

The hon. member said that the hon. member for Gezina had given an unqualified assurance.

No, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) said that. Not I.

Does the hon. member then not admit that the statement of the hon. member for Gezina was not an unqualified assurance of assistance to those territories?

You must not attack me about that, you must attack the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

I have already dealt with it. I pointed out that the late Minister had denied that interpretation. What the hon. member for Gezina said was that those territories would be assisted if they were attacked in certain circumstances. Have those territories been attacked? Does the hon. member for Kensington deny that those territories have acted aggressively in this war?

Why?

Because the British Government declared war on their account. Therefore they were aggressors in the true sense of the word. Even South Africa was aggressive, because South Africa declared war. At that time the Government contravened the Defence Act because the Defence Act says that South Africa can only act on the defensive. Then so far as the naval reserves are concerned, the Prime Minister made out that those lads were practically in the service of the British Government. Now suppose that the Union of South Africa, the Parliament of the Union, had on the 4th September declared the Union to be neutral, what would have been the position of those lads? Would the British Government have been entitled to use Union nationals in the war, in which South Africa was neutral? That surely would have been quite in conflict with our constitutional position. If those lads were in the service of the British Navy, as he says, then the British Navy could have used those lads, although South Africa had declared itself neutral. I want to point out that South Africa, under the Status Act, is a sovereign and independent nation, although the hon. member for Kensington and the Minister of Mines will possibly deny it. Most hon. members on that side will, however, also admit it. It is therefore an unprecedented thing for the citizens of a sovereign and independent country to be used in the war of another country, when the former country was neutral.

They are even a part of our Defence Force.

Yes, we would then have the position that a part of our Defence Force would take part in a war, and another part would be neutral. I want to say that that is a completely wrong interpretation of our constitutional status.

It is strange how since the 4th September the Minister of Defence has sytematically deviated from that promise which he made that he would not send troops out of the country. We now find that in the meantime 150 lads have been allowed to go to England and to join the British Navy. In addition we learn that the Minister intends—he says that he already has 50,000 volunteers who are prepared to go and fight outside South Africa—to use some of our citizens outside the borders of our country. The parents of boys and the people in the country are becoming uneasy about that state of affairs. It is quite inexplicable that the Prime Minister should evade his promises in such a way. The Prime Minister spoke about 50,0000 volunteers, but I have before me here a speech which was made on the 5th February this year by a certain Mr. H. O. Frielinghaus, of which the following report appeared in the Port Elizabeth Herald—

Now we ask, what does that mean? We find that in consequence of that speech one of the English inhabitants of Port Elizabeth, where the speech was made, wrote a letter to the Port Elizabeth Herald, and signed his name as “Ex-soldier.” He wrote this—

From this the Government can see that it is not only on our side where uneasiness prevails. Even some of the supporters of the Minister of Defence, persons who took part in the last war, and who we may assume, support the Prime Minister, point out that these lads are joining under the clear condition that the Government will not send them outside South Africa, in accordance with the promise of the Prime Minister that we would not send any troops outside South Africa. Now we have to learn still more and find out that it is not a fact that as happened during the previous war, the Imperial Government will pay the costs. No, South Africa will pay for it this time. We wonder what it all means. First of all the Prime Minister said that he would not allow a single person to set foot abroad for the purpose of fighting, and now he wants them to go and fight there as volunteers. We cannot help thinking that the whole object was to concentrate the troops here to be used to collect still more colonies, and to paint the map of South Africa, which is already fairly pink, still more pink. We want to know where the Prime Minister now wants to send troops, what they are to do there, and with whom. There is no war here. We want to know whether our troops must be used to create more colonies for the Empire. The action of the Prime Minister is not quite clear to us. It looks to us to be pretty much like chaos. We only hope, seeing that the Prime Minister has already reached a fairly advanced age, that when the historian some day comes to write the history of this war, it will not be said of him what Lord Beaverbrook said about Balfour in connection with England’s war debts to America. He said this—

The Prime Minister must take care that that is not also some day the judgment of the historian on his action in this war. We feel that the people and the country must have an explanation by the Prime Minister as to what his intentions are with those volunteers. We want to know where he wants to send them, and what he is going to do with them. I would like at this stage, to quote something to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). He attacked the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) all the evening, and the matter has already been very fully debated. Nevertheless, I think that I should quote further evidence to throw more light on the point, namely, on a speech which the hon. member for Gezina made as Minister of Defence on the 24th March. 1938, at Piet Retief, when he addressed the commandants. He said this, inter alia—

It is quite clear what the attitude of the hon. member for Gezina was, but I want to read out something else which is written in a book by a certain Stewart, called “The Empire Re-armed,” which recently appeared. I am quoting it because it was so strange, to my mind, that when the hon. member for Gezina was carrying out the policy of the United Party, everything was in order and he was praised by hon. members opposite, but now that he is sitting on this side, now nothing but fault is found. In this book we find this, inter alia—

And with reference to that I also want to put a question to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). He always agreed with this view, but simply because he and other hon. members opposite differed from the policy of the United party—which says that we will all act on the defensive, and are going to defend when South Africa’s interests are threatened—what does he now say about the hon. member for Gezina? Now there is no good at all in the hon. member for Gezina! No, we must remain consistent. I ask my hon. friends opposite—they are honest men—let them honestly come out with it and say that they voted with us up to the 4th September, but on that date they changed their opinion. Let them be honest and frankly say that to South Africa.

At 10.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again: House to resume in Committee on 6th March.